Lessons learnt from implementation of the Frameworks for Action (FFAs)

Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) Learnt From Implementation of the Frame For Action (FFAs) Consultants' Report V. tJi'.tf,M SIWAAR Secretarii at The Worl d Bink WVaishington, ).(., U.S.A.  Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) Lessons Learnt from Implementation of the Frameworks For Action (FFAs) Consultants' Report March 1995  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii 1. INTRODUCTION I 1.1 Request for Review of Lessons Learnt 1 1.2 Terms of Reference 1 1.3 Composition of the Review Team 1 1.4 Activities of the Review Team 2 2. SPAAR AND THE FRAMEWORKS FOR ACTION 3 2.1 Chronology and Philosophy of SPAAR Actions 3 2.2 The Frameworks for Action (FFAs) 4 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FFAs: PROGRESS IN PLANNING 7 3.1 Drawing up the Masterplans -- Some Country Examples 7 3.2 Common Elements of Masterplanning 10 3.3 Priorities in the Masterplans__ 11 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FFAs: REORGANIZATION OF THE NARSs 13 4.1 Legal Status of the NARSs 13 4.2 Decentralization 14 4.3 Rationalization of Staffing 15 4.3.1 Down-sizing_ 16 4.3.2 Staff Evaluation 17 4.4 Staff Conditions 17 4.5 Accounting Systems 18 4.6 Financial Management 19 4.7 Consolidated Funding Mechanisms (CFMs) 19 4.8 Funding for Agricultural Research 22 4.8.1 Funding for Infrastructure 22 4.8.2 Government Funding 22 4.8.3 Donor Funding 23 4.8.4 Other Funding Sources 24 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FFAs: IMPROVING LINKAGES 26 5.1 Research - Extension - Farmer Linkages 26 5.2 Linkages with NGOs 30 5.3 Linkages with the Private Sector 31 5.4 Linkages with IARCs and Other Advanced Research Organizations 32 5.5 Regionalization of Research 35 5.6 Donor Coordination 37 6. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38 6.1 Significant Findings and Comments 38 6.2 Recommendations 41 iii  APPENDIX 1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE 44 APPENDIX 2 - ITINERARY OF REVIEW TEAM 47 APPENDIX 3 - PERSONS MET 48 APPENDIX 4 - PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED 54 iv  ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED AB/DLO Research Institute for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (Netherlands) ACIAR Australian Center for Intemational Agricultural Research ADAB Australian Development Assistance Bureau ADB African Development Bank ARF Agricultural Research Fund ARTP Agricultural Research and Training Project ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastem and Central Africa CADEF Comite d'appui au developpement des fonts CFM Consolidated Funding Mechanisms CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CILSS Comite permanent inter-Etats de lutte contre la secheresse dans le Sahel/Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel CMINYT International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement CIRAD Centre de cooperation intemationale en recherche agronomique pour le developpement (France) CMAAOC Conference des ministres d'agriculture de l'Afrique de l'Ouest et du centre CMAWCA Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central Africa CMDT Compagnie malienne de developpement des textiles CNCR Comite national de concertation des ruraux CNRA Comite national de la recherche agronomique (Mali) COCOBOD Cocoa Development Board (Ghana) CORAF Conference des responsables de recherche agronomique africains CRIG Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Ghana) CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization DGIS Directorate General for International Cooperation (Netherlands) DRT Department of Research and Training, Ministry of Agriculture (Tanzania) EAAFRO East African Agricultural and Forestry Research Organization EAC East African Community ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EPA Etablissement public a caractere administratif EPCST Etablissement public a caractere scientifique et technique EPIC Etablissement public a caractere industriel et commercial EPMR External Program and Management Review EU European Union  FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFA Framework for Action FSR Farming Systems Research GDP Gross Domestic Product GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft ftir technische Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for Technical Cooperation) IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IARC International Agricultural Research Center ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IDRC International Development Research Centre (Canada) IER Institut d'economie rurale (Mali) IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture ILCA International Livestock Centre for Africa INSAH Institut du Sahel ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research (Netherlands) ISRA Institut s6n6galais de recherches agricoles KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KIT Koninglijk Instituut voor de Tropen (Royal Tropical Institute) (Netherlands) MIAC Mid-America International Agriculture Consortium NALRM National Agricultural and Livestock Research Masterplan NALRP National Agricultural and Livestock Research Project (Tanzania) NARC National Agricultural Research Council NARO National Agricultural Research Organization (Uganda) NARP National Agricultural Research Project NARS National Agricultural Research System NCU National Coordinating Unit NGO Non-governmental organization NRI Natural Resources Institute (UK) OAU Organization of African Unity ODA Overseas Development Administration (UK) R+D Research & Development ROCARS Reseau ouest et centre africain de recherche sur le sorgho (Mali) SACCAR Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research & Training SADC Southern African Development Community SAFGRAD Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development SIS SPAAR Information System SODEFITEX Societe de developpement de fibres et textiles (Senegal) SONAGRAINE Societe nationale de graine SPAAR Special Program for African Agricultural Research STRC Scientific, Technical and Research Commission of the Organization of African Unity vi  SUN SunSystems Accounting Software UK United Kingdom UNCST Uganda National Council for Science and Technology UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association WASIP West African Sorghum Improvement Program WCASRN West and Central Africa Sorghum Research Network (Mali) vii  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As resolved at the fourteenth Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) plenary session held in Paris, France in January 1994, a team of independent consultants led by Dr. Dunstan S.C. Spencer, supported by Drs. Paul Kleene and John C. Davies, visited six countries in East and West Africa. The countries included the two pilot countries, Tanzania and Mali, which had agreed to implement the principles of the Frameworks for Action.(FFAs) The team met a cross-section of National Agricultural Research System (NARS) research administrators, "in country" donor representatives, World Bank, African Development Bank (ADB) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) personnel and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) staff. The team was charged with specifically reviewing the lessons learnt from implementation of the FFAs. Overall, the team found that considerable changes had been brought about in the management and organization of National Agricultural Research Systems (NARSs) through application of the basic principles of the FFAs in East, West and Southern Africa. Such principles are now institutionalized. Of particular note is the progress made in the development of strategies for NARSs and determination of priorities for research. The wide acceptance of these principles has provided a foundation for the introduction of improved systems of accountability, staff deployment and programming. These were widely debated by stakeholders and particularly by national scientists in NARSs, resulting in a genuine sense of ownership of the projected activities which augurs well for the future strengthening of NARSs and the improvement of outputs and impact. The process of formulation and reorganization under Masterplanning drew attention to the potential benefits arising from regional research activities and its utility in strengthening inter-country exchange of information, conduct of mutually beneficial research and possible resource savings. Opportunities and problems are discussed in the report also important issues requiring further in-depth consideration to ensure that workable guidelines for such activity are developed. Important advances are apparent in the installation of both hardware and software to manage existing NARS resources more effectively. These are important in the context of the need to shift resources to meet the new priorities set in the Masterplans. However, despite the significant improvements in management and organizational culture, a universal and recurring problem is the shortage of operational funding. This persists despite the serious attempts by managements to reduce staff levels and research sites to meet the requirements of the new priorities and agenda. difl FFA Lessons Learnt - Executive Summary  The creation of fora for exchange of information between NARSs and their donors is a marked achievement of the implementation of the FFAs. The desirability of involving the private sector in this information exchange and priority-setting is creating avenues for possible additional funding. Modes of tapping into these sources are being actively explored by NARSs. Among the options being considered are cess funding and contract research. A major success of the SPAAR/FFA activity has been the progressively higher profile taken by NARSs in planning their activities with full donor involvement. This has resulted in increased credibility within their own administrations and the creation of more demand-led research agendas. Difficulties still remain in achieving the much-sought-after farmer perspectives on research agendas. However, interesting mechanisms are being tried and require further evaluation to ascertain whether they have wider applicability. The report draws attention to the complex and numerous organizations involved in research coordination and networking. There is a particular need to define the relationships between these organizations now, and to ensure that duplication of effort and dissipation of scarce staff and funding resource are minimized. The time is particularly opportune to examine the relationships between NARSs and International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) in view of the moves towards ecoregional research in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system. Implementation of the FFAs is unlikely to be the solution since every NARS has its own political, historical and national perspective. Many of the concepts, however, are sound and their wider application will lead to the significant strengthening of NARS capability, output and credibility. The following is a full list of the lessons that have been learnt from implementation of the FFAs. Detailed justifications are in Chapters 3-5 of the report. Masterplan Strategies and Priorities (Ch. 3.3) Lesson 1: The Masterplanning process has had an important and significant effect in institutionalizing priority-setting mechanisms in NARSs and in aligning agricultural research with national development objectives. The cost of the operation in staff involvement and time is high, but it is difficult to see how ownership of strategy and plans can be established without the use of internal scientific know-how and experience. The process has had a marked value in capacity building for planning in NARSs. Lesson 2: Complicated methods of priority-setting proved difficult to implement in the formulation of NARS Masterplans. Generally, national systems adopted weighted check list systems, which enabled modifiers and local value judgments to be incorporated in priorities set. Priority-setting needs to be well-supported by the timely provision of hardware, generally by donors. FFA Lessons Learnt - Executive Summary ix  Lesson 3: Use of carefully selected key consultants from within the country and external sources was justified. Consultants need to have considerable experience of the development process and the countries/national research systems. The final selection of consultants should be a national system responsibility. The role of the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), in the provision of important know-how, techniques and backstopping in assisting in the Masterplanning exercise, was invaluable. It is questionable whether the published strategy documentation could have been achieved in the absence of this input. Lesson 4: Additional consideration needs to be given to the realities of collaborative regional research. NARS management, while appreciating the potential benefits of such activity, is conscious of the necessity to create stable, well-funded and self-confident national systems as a first priority, and to avoid the dissipation of scarce national capacity and funding. The regional research agenda therefore needs to be very carefully identified and relative comparative advantages fully exploited to mutual advantage. Lesson 5: While there has been a marked improvement in aligning national priorities with demand- led perspectives through the Masterplanning exercise, further efforts are required to develop adequate techniques to ensure that farm-level issues are fully incorporated into research agendas at the national level. While techniques exist for the incorporation of farmers' views at the local level, there are still difficulties in involving farmers in priority-setting at the national level. Lesson 6: In spite of the emphasis on policy research in the FFAs, the Masterplans developed have hardly addressed the topic. This is a reflection of the weakness of NARS staffing in this area. Lesson 7: The strategies and priorities set have, in general, been endorsed by both national governments and donors. Donors, however, are still committed to long-standing research projects. Care is therefore needed to ensure that donor perspectives are not at variance with priorities agreed in national strategies. NARS: Legal Status (Ch. 4.1) Lesson 8: Reform of the legal status of the NARSs is a long-term process. It needs firm support from national and international organizations. Lesson 9: The moves toward setting-up of independent semi-autonomous NARSs have had a positive effect on their operations by increasing the flexibility and discretionary authority of research managers, and should continue to be encouraged. Lesson 10: In the move to achieve other objectives, (e.g. removal of duplication between research organizations, reduction of costs to the government budget, etc.), care should be taken not to compromise the existing independence, however limited, of the NARSs. NARS: Decentralization (Ch. 4.2) Lesson 11: The general move towards more decentralized decision-making in the NARSs is facilitating, and is reinforced by, moves to have more client- or user-oriented research programs. The moves have been universally welcomed by the clients and partners of the NARS and their collaborators. x FFA Lessons Learnt - Executive Summary  Lesson 12: Having a decentralized system does not in itself reduce the management problems of the NARSs. In fact, the creation of a coordinated research program, and financial management, might be rendered more difficult. There might be a temptation to solve these problems in the short run through centralization of management. This should be avoided. Instead, efforts should be directed towards making the decentralized system function better, e.g. by providing adequate incentives for administrative staff, training of staff based in the regions/zones, and setting up of consultative bodies such as Advisory Committees. NARS: Staff Rationalization (Ch. 4.3) Lesson 13: Significant down-sizing of NARS in order to free resources for recurrent expenditure is now possible and has occurred in the NARS. Lesson 14: In the down-sizing exercise, care must be taken to ensure that cuts are made proportionally, in order not to end up with unbalanced staffing profiles that may result in management problems. Lesson 15: Down-sizing must be accompanied by a significant increase in salaries and conditions of service, if the low staff morale in the NARSs is not to suffer even more as a result of the uncertainty and insecurity introduced by the exercise. Such uncertainty was manifest in many of the reforming NARS visited. NARS: Staff Evaluation and Conditions (Ch. 4.3.2 & 4.4) Lesson 16: One-time evaluation of the researchers in the NARSs, using panels that include external evaluators, has resulted in the appropriate grading of staff, and has helped legitimize the staff of the NARSs internationally. Appropriate periodic staff evaluation systems still need to be put in place in some cases to ensure that the desired quality and quantity of output are obtained. Lesson 17: Improvement of the conditions of service of NARS staff is only possible if the NARSs have a semi-autonomous legal status, and other steps are taken towards the preparation of new schemes of service, are taken. Lesson 18: The much desired improvement in conditions of staff service, and hence of morale in the short run in the NARSs will be possible only if donors are willing to be innovative in allowing their funds to be used to improve the conditions of service of researchers. There is of course the question of the sustainability of such support, i.e. the ability of governments to take over such funding when donors withdraw. In any case, it is clear that such support should not be on a project basis as was done by individual donors in the past, but should be on a system-wide basis, as in Uganda. NARS: Accounting Systems and Financial Management (Ch. 4.5 & 4.6) Lesson 19: With the hardware and software available commercially, it is possible to install and operate appropriate decentralized accounting systems in the NARSs. Adequate progress has been made by the NARSs. In this respect, the SunSystems Accounting Software (SUN) and similar systems provide the degree of transparency that is normally required by donors. Lesson 20: Computerized program accounting systems in the NARSs now provide the opportunity for effective financial management. However, NARSs need continued training and assistance to make effective use of the systems. FFA Lessons Learnt - Executive Summary xi  Consolidated Funding Mechanisms (CFMs) (Ch. 4.7) Lesson 21: Agreement by donors with the principle of the CFM, and pronouncements at SPAAR meetings does not necessarily mean operational support at the field or country desk level. Expectations in the FFA about donor support for the Agricultural Research Fund (ARE) seem over- optimistic. Lesson 22: When new and innovative concepts, such as the CFM, are agreed to by donors, they should take steps to ensure that the legal framework is in place so that implementation can proceed as soon as their partners in the NARSs have fulfilled the conditionalities. Otherwise disappointment and disillusionment among the NARSs will hamper collaboration in the future. Lesson 23: One donor can lead the pack in experimenting with new ways of funding NARSs. The example of United States Agency for International Development (USAID ) in Kenya is illuminating. Donors agreed to create an ARF in Kenya in 1989, and USAID got it started in 1992. There has been only a token contribution from one other donor (about $30,000 from Overseas Development Administration (ODA). It now seems that the idea is gradually catching on. For example, the ODA field official is now apparently working on convincing headquarters to agree to a more substantial contribution, and the World Bank is working on setting up a "Secondary Special Account" that would allow it to contribute to an ARF. Lesson 24: An innovative NARS can devise ways of getting around donor reticence in contributing to an ARF. The experience of Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in parceling out its program to different donors, and in devising ways of getting around reluctance of donors to put their monies in a CFM is evident (see Chapter 8.3). Fundingfrom Governments, Donors and Other Sources (Ch. 4. 81-5) Lesson 25: Focus only on the "software" of NARS in the reform process is unjustified. Equal attention must be paid to the "hardware." Lesson 26: The discussions surrounding the FFAs and the preparation of Masterplans in the NARSs has increased the awareness of, and commitment to, agricultural research in the countries visited by the Review Team. The experience has shown that it is possible to get national governments to make regular commitments to agricultural research in partnership with donors. Lesson 27: Progress in getting donor support for agreed priority programs in the Masterplans has been much faster where the NARSs can divide their program into projects which bilateral donors can fund using their traditional project financing mode. Donors are still very reluctant to move to program financing and CFMs. Lesson 28: There is potential for increasing the direct support for agricultural research from the private sector and parastatal organizations. Once the NARSs have established a Masterplan, they have been pursuing such opportunities vigorously. Success in getting support from the private sector depends on the creation of the necessary legal frameworks, and the provision of adequate incentives, bearing in mind the profit motive of private enterprises. Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages (Ch. 5.1) Lesson 29: The FFA process, with its emphasis on zonal priority setting, has increased the level of awareness of the importance of improved participation of extension agents and farmers in setting of research agendas and priorities. xii FFA Lessons Learnt - Executive Summary  Lesson 30: Practical difficulties exist in fully integating farmers into the research planning process, especially at the national level. Appropriate methodology still needs to be developed and institutionalized in the NARSs. The selection of farmer representatives for User Committees is greatly facilitated where farmer organizations exist. The effectiveness of Farmer-Research linkages could be increased considerably if the long-term partnership arrangements that exist in some zones, for example, the farmer-researcher groups could be extended more widely. Lesson 31: Research-Extension linkages can be strengthened by taking such steps as making sure that extension agencies are fully represented in research planning committees at the regional and national levels, that they participate in on-farm trials conducted by NARSs or are responsible for such trials, and that NARSs are involved in the training of extension personnel. NGO and Private Sector Linkages (Ch. 5.2 & 5.3) Lesson 32: Linkages with NGOs and farmers' organizations are a very efficient way for narrowing the gap between research and practice. Written agreements which set out the rules for such collaboration, including financial and administrative procedures, help to ensure the smooth operation of such partnerships over time. Lesson 33: NGOs are a prominent feature of the countries visited and significant numbers are involved in natural resource management at village and farmer levels. They are a useful medium through which farmer perceptions of research outputs can be obtained and problems identified. The involvement of NGOs in research commnittees has improved the research planning process by bringing in the view from the field. Lesson 34: The existence of a national NGO coordinating body within a country greatly facilitates the identification of relevant partners for NARSs at the farm level. Lesson 35: Important direct financial contributions from NGOs to the NARSs cannot be expected. However, it is likely that close linkages and sustainable partnerships will enhance the prospects of obtaining continued donor support for the NARSs and ensure thus the rapid and effective dissemnination of proven research findings. Lesson 36: The move towards closer involvement of the private sector in research has been beneficial in terms of improving the responsiveness of the NARSs to the needs of their users, and in opening up a potential avenue for the increased funding of agricultural activities. L4RC Linkages (Ch. 5.4) Lesson 37: Improvements in research programmiing, priority-setting and functioning of the NARSs has allowed them to become more effective partners with IARCs and developed country institutions. They are better able to identify priority areas for collaborative research. Lesson 38: Recent improvements in the IARC - NARS relationship have still not modified the top- down priority-setting approach of some IARCs. Efforts are still needed to put in place formal mechanisms that would allow NARSs to contribute better to research priority-setting in the IARCs. FFA Lessons Learnt - Executive Summary xill  1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Request for Review of Lessons Learnt At the Fourteenth Plenary Session of SPAAR in Paris, France, in January 1994, it was decided to undertake a review of progress made in the implementation of the two completed FFAs in Agricultural Research in the Sahel and Southern Africa. The general feeling was that there could be useful "lessons to be learnt" from FFA implementation in Mali and Tanzania, the respective pilot countries of the Sahel and Southern Africa. The FFA principles have been incorporated into the design of new research projects and in the re-design of existing ones, e.g. in Burkina Faso, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, and Zambia. It was felt that these countries may have useful lessons to impart in the way the FFA principles are being utilized. 1.2 Terms of Reference The SPAAR Secretariat prepared detailed Terms of Reference for a team of consultants that would conduct the review of Lessons Learnt (see Appendix l). The team was required to examine the experience of the NARSs in preparing their broad medium- to long- term strategic plans -- the so-called Masterplans, and their shorter term zonal/program plans -- the so-called Action Plans. Progress in putting in place appropriate and transparent financial mechanisms for agricultural research, and improvements in institutional and management capacity, were to be assessed. The success or otherwise of attempts to improve the linkages of the NARSs with their potential clients (farmers, extension systems, NGOs, the private sector, etc.), their regional and international collaborators, and their donors was also to be examined. The team was required to assess the main impacts or achievements of the FFA implementation process and to identify factors contributing to the outcomes observed. Areas where improvements to the FFA implementation process could be made were to be identified and the desirability of replicating the process in other countries indicated. 1.3 Composition of the Review Team The Review was carried out by a team of three consultants led by Dr. Dunstan Spencer, an agricultu.-al economist, and an independent consultant based in Sierra Leone. The other two members were Dr. Paul Kleene, a socio-economist from the Netherlands working with Centre de cooperation internationale en recherche agronomique (CIRAD) in Burkina Faso and Dr. John C. Davies, an entomologist and former Deputy Chief Natural Resources Adviser (Research) with the ODA in London, United Kingdom (UK). FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter I 1  1.4 Activities of the Review Team The team visited Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya (November 25 - December 11, 1994) and Mali, Senegal and Ghana (January 15 - 31, 1995). It spent the period February 1 - 17 at the SPAAR Secretariat in Washington, D.C.. A detailed itinerary of the mission is provided in Appendix 2. In each country visited, discussions were held with officials of the NARS, donor representatives, staff of extension agencies, NGOs, and representatives of farmer organizations. Appendix 3 has a list of persons met. The strategy adopted by each NARS in preparing its research Masterplan was reviewed, and the progress made and difficulties encountered in plan implementation were discussed. The financial and administrative management systems were examined, and linkages between the NARSs, extension agencies and farmers were explored. Particular attention was paid to exploring the functioning of donor coordinating mechanisms. The teamn received excellent cooperation from all concerned, and was able to collect enough information to distill important lessons from the implementation of the principles of the FFAs in the six countries. 2 FFA Leons Loarnt - COapter I  2. SPAAR AND THE FRAMEWORKS FOR ACTION 2.1 Chronology and Philosophy of SPAAR Actions SPAAR was initiated in the mid 1980s. Its development and shift of focus has been a process of steady evolution. The organization was initially and essentially a forum of donors, who had a common interest in sponsoring and funding agricultural research in Africa. Their perception was that in spite of donor inputs of funds and expertise, NARSs were failing to generate technology and information of value for national development plans. There was also an underlying concern that messages, materials and technologies which were emerging from the CGIAR system (funded by the same donors) were not passing to NARSs or gaining acceptance by them. There was concern that the NARS research agenda was largely supply- driven and that research programs were frequently academic and geared to the production of technical reports and papers and not outputs useful to users. The first few meetings of SPAAR were thus essentially annual and held on the fringes of the CGIAR International Centers Week. Arising from these meetings, a work agenda was proposed in which four activities were identified for SPAAR donor funding and activity. These addressed the assessment of existing research information ("on the shelf technology") in Senegal and Tanzania, sponsored by France, UK and Germany; a listing and characterization of research networks operational in Africa, sponsored by USAID; a small grants scheme for returning scientists managed by IFS and sponsored by several SPAAR donors; and the development of an information system to provide data on donor projects in SPAAR countries -- the SPAAR Information System (SIS). All these activities began to increasingly involve more and better contacts between donors and the NARSs. It soon became obvious that there was a requirement to involve national scientists and administrators far more intimately in SPAAR activities in order to underline the relevance and ensure the inclusion of national perspectives. The process also revealed that few national systems had strategies or mechanisms for setting priorities associated with governmental policies or the needs of their potential clients. To address this problem, a donor coordinating group for Tanzania was established. SPAAR, with considerable input from ISNAR and funding from Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, initiated an intensive Masterplanning exercise in Tanzania. A series of SPAAR-sponsored workshops enabled Masterplanning to proceed with the heavy involvement of national scientists, outside consultants and considerable donor assistance in organization and management. These activities led to significant improvements in the ability of the national system to set priorities and radically change strategies. These processes have become institutionalized and have led to the development of national capability in the updating of planning processes and a marked sense of ownership by the national systems themselves. Their relevance in other African systems is obvious and has gained acceptance. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 2 3  In parallel with these Masterplanning exercises and in response to emerging perceptions of common problems and the utility of regional planning, SPAAR, in association with regional organizations such as Southern African Center for Cooperation in Agricultural Research and Training (SACCAR), Institut du Sahel (INSAH) and the World Bank, prepared FFAs. Progress was made through an intensive process of stakeholder interaction and iteration, which identified common actions and themes which were necessary for strengthening the NARSs. 2.2 The Frameworks for Action (FFAs) The FFAs assume, as a starting point, that science-based technology generation and dissemination should be in the forefront of sustainable agricultural development. They also seek to address the slow rate of technology generation in the African NARSs in the recent past, despite the considerable investment in research. The raison d'etre of the FFAs is the strengthening of the NARSs in their respective regions to provide the technology required to realize the national and regional potential for agricultural productivity and growth. As described in the introduction to the Review Team's Terms of Reference, the common elements or principles of the Frameworks include: 1. A Research Masterplan or Strategy. Each country should have a national Research Masterplan or Strategy that satisfies four necessary conditions: (i) the Research Strategy must be developed by the nationals themselves; (ii) the research that will be undertaken on the priority programs in the Research Strategy must be detailed in the Research Action Plans (sometimes referred to as Research Profiles); (iii) research projects (trials) must address the most important technical questions affecting the productivity of farmers; and (iv) the Action Plans must be in accord with the country's available human and financial resources. 2. Financing Mechanismfor Agricultural Research. Productive NARSs require a stable, sufficient and timely supply of funds for the agreed priority research programs included in the Research Strategy. A major constraint to effective research is the inadequacy of funding, especially the lack of provision for recurrent research operating costs. The inadequacy of local resources and the small proportion of the research budget allocated to operations and maintenance is exacerbated by the fact that donor support to specific activities does not usually extend to the local cost of non- incremental recurrent research expenditure of existing projects or programs. At the Tenth SPAAR Plenary Session in May 1990, there was agreement that this important issue of recurrent research operating costs will need to be addressed by SPAAR donors and their African partners together. The World Bank took the lead in designing a mechanism, the so-called CFM, that would treat the funding of agreed research programs as part of capital investment. The proposed CFM has been agreed to in principle by SPAAR donors and their African partners. Such a mechanism can only work where reliable and transparent accounting procedures are in place. Suitable accounting software is now available to make this possible. Agricultural Research 4 FFA Lessons Learmt - Chapter 2  Funds (ARFs), which can be regarded as simple prototypes of eventual full-fledged CFMs, have been established in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe to foster collaborative and contract research. The ARFs will also pilot the pooling of research efforts (and funds). 3. Institutional and Management Capacity Building. Research management and team leaders must increasingly be empowered to make critical decisions on, and be held accountable for, their research budget and the management of their research personnel. To improve the scientific and management capacity of NARSs, the World Bank and other donors are increasingly requiring that, in the projects they fund, research managers be given more discretionary authority and flexibility. 4. In-country Advisory Group. A support or Advisory Group that is chaired by the Director of Agricultural Research and comprising representatives of public sector research institutions (including the academic research community), donor organizations, IARCs, the private sector and NGOs can play a critical role in the implementation of the Action Plans (the end-product of translating the priority research programs in the Research Strategy). Such an Advisory Group must be entrusted with the responsibility for: (i) policy formulation; (ii) research program review; (iii) resource allocation; and (iv) monitoring and auditing. An effective Group can contribute to research management capacity building. 5. Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages. Research that is not translated into results on the farm is of little value. It is, therefore, highly desirable that representatives of the extension service and farmers participate in the annual research planning process, as well as in the implementation and evaluation of results. It is of fundamental importance that research and extension be better integrated and are provided with equivalent measures of support. 6. Regionalization of Research. There are potential spillover benefits from the regionalization of research. In Africa, such potential gains from regional research remain largely untapped. NARSs and their research partners should be encouraged to support regional research -- to address technical problems that transcend national boundaries. The background against which each of the FFAs is set is very different, especially in the context of regional efforts. In the Sahel, there are several major regional coordinating bodies and networks, some of which are long-standing, e.g. Comite permanent inter-Etats de lutte contre la secheresse dans le Sahel (CILSS), INSAH, Semi-Arid Food and Grain Research and Development (SAFGRAD), and more recently, Conference des responsables de recherche agronomique Africains (CORAF). Here, the practicalities of regional cooperation have been exhaustively discussed for years. In Southern Africa, a strong regional coordinating body, SACCAR, exists as an organ of Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). The former body has clearly defined regional responsibilities in agriculture. In East and Central FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 2 5  Africa, until the recent formation of Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), no coordinating body existed, though there previously had been a recognized body, East African Agricultural and Forestry Research Organization (EAAFRO), which collapsed with the demise of the East African Community.(EAC) In the coastal countries of West Africa, there is no effective regional coordinating body for agricultural research. Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has a nominal role which it has not exercised. The IARC system has been involved in significant regional commodity networking in the different regions. The Sahel framework specifically suggests cross-cutting actions that can support revitalized national and regional effort. There is also reference to the need for a more demand- led research agenda. The East and Central Africa framework places considerable emphasis, in the context of institutional reform, on sensitizing policymakers to ensure adequate and stable funding, and timely fund delivery for recurrent expenditures. Farmer participation in setting both the research agenda and making results readily assimilable is targeted. The lead role of NARSs in setting the regional research agenda and their empowerment is stressed. The Southern Africa framework is more prescriptive in defining the elements of the FFA strategy. It proposes a consolidated programming and funding mechanism, development of a capacity for policy analysis, encouragement of private sector involvement in formulation of national and regional plans, improvement in the quality of science and technology, intensification of existing farming systems and diversification of the commodity base and specific targeting of the rural poor in arid and marginal areas through "on farm" research, application of biotechnology, wildlife management and utilization programs. The framework specifically focuses on people, those who create the technology (scientists) and the ultimate beneficiaries (producers and consumers). In some ways, Tanzania, a pilot FFA country, occupies a very interesting position as it currently "belongs" to the Southern Africa FFA, owing to political factors, while clearly, in ecoregional and geographic terms, it has more in common with the East and Central Africa FFA and is a member country of ASARECA. 6 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 2  3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FFAs: PROGRESS IN PLANNING Production of Masterplans in the countries visited by the team predated the development of the FFAs. Since the development of such plans is a cornerstone of any realistic effort to improve research output, resource allocation and research management, there is clearly a congruence of objectives between the development of national strategies, priority- setting and one major FFA objective. The exact mechanisms of priority-setting varied from country to country, but in all instances took as a basic premise the involvement of significant numbers of practicing scientists and national research leaders in working groups, assisted by external and internal consultants. Mont exercises also involved the commissioning of specific papers on various aspects of priority research with subsequent independent assessment of proposals made. The involvement of ISNAR in the mechanics and organization of priority-setting was a common and important feature of the Masterplanning exercises. In all instances, task groups comprehensively reviewed on-going research, past achievements and planned research against stated govemment policy objectives. The establishing of this linkage was an important and fundamental step in providing a sound and credible basis for the acceptance of agricultural research as an important feature of development plans of the countries visited. 3.1 Drawing up the Masterplans -- Some Country Examples The Masterplanning exercise in Tanzania was a long drawn out process, and a considerable challenge for the NARS system. It was stimulated by an appraisal carried out with World Bank assistance in 1987/88. The process itself was initiated in mid-1989 under the control of the Department of Research and Training (DRT). It was funded by a consortium of donors -- the Netherlands, Germany and UK -- who had traditionally been involved in research in Tanzania. Funding amounted to $1.5 million as grants. Some difficulties were caused by the different accountability "rules" of donors in mobilizing funds in a timely fashion. A total of 4 working groups involving 30 national scientists and managers were set up to cover research planning and management, resources, research linkages and information and documentation. A national coordinating unit (NCU) of 17 persons was created which included 7 planning officers who were assisted by subject matter specialists, key consultants and the working groups. The process of planning was estimated to take 8 months. In all, the groups reviewed 36 review papers prepared by national scientists and received representations in addition to reviewing literature and information obtained on program content, on-going research and available resources obtained from questionnaires. The summarized information was subsequently further reviewed in a national workshop, which involved 11 key consultants from overseas -- a useful device in bringing fresh perspectives to the final plan and avoiding/minimizing internal division within the NARSs. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 3 7  Difficulties arose in the course of consideration of the organization and management studies associated with the planning exercise and a special team was commissioned to make recommendations on management, finance, personnel, and computing. In contrast to the planning process in many of the other countries visited (except possibly Ghana), there was a relatively high-profile donor involvement in the exercise. Based on the work of the NCU, a printed National Agricultural and Livestock Master Plan (NALRM) was produced and subsequently endorsed by both government and the donor community in 1992. The plan was formulated before the FFA for Southern Africa was produced and consequently does not spell out in great detail Tanzania's role in the FFA regional program. In the course of the team's visit, it was noted that mechanisms exist for updating the priority research programs and to adjust planned activities to available human and financial resources. Evidence was produced of recent reviews of profiles for rice, cotton, agroforestry, farming systems research, ruminant meat and milk and animal diseases programs. It was however, apparent that donors continue to support long-standing projects which are incorporated into the plan e.g. Germany -- coconut research, the Netherlands -- farming systems and ODA - cashew. The Masterplanning process in Mali was initiated in 1989 by IER in collaboration with ISNAR. Here again, there was a significant involvement of national scientists in setting the priorities which were set for 12 years with regard to both content and research allocations. Seven research programs were identified -- cereals and legumes, industrial crops, fruit and vegetables, annual production, forestry and fisheries agricultural production systems and natural resource management. Sub-programs by commodity and activity were identified. A significant decision in Mali was to decentralize and create regional centers for agroecological zones at the outset, making regional center directors responsible for programming and supervision. The completed strategy was presented to a donor Round Table in 1992. The exercise therefore ran in parallel with the INSAH/SPAAR exercise conducted with the national institutes of CILSS countries which also prepared the FFAs for revitalizing agricultural research. Using pre-project funding of $0.75 million, an extremely well-documented system of research programming has been designed with four operational mechanisms, including users and scientific committees at the regional and national levels which will enable strategies to be updated. There is also a program committee for LER, a regional committee and local working groups. The Uganda National Research system comprises two main elements working in close association: The National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). The Council advises government on the formulation and management of explicit national policy and all fields of science and technology; promotes, develops, and integrates science and technology in the national development process and coordinates all scientific and technological activities geared to national needs and environmentally acceptable sustained economic development. 8 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 3  It rationalizes the use of foreign science and technology, establishes linkages with centers of excellence --both national and international, develops systems of information management, and communication systems. It also operates legal systems for the protection of technological innovations. It is semi-autonomous and is composed of 34 eminent individuals appointed on merit, headed by an Executive Secretary, who is the Accounting Officer to the Council. Clear programs are defined in published policy documents and there is close liaison with NARO on agricultural, environmental and sustainability issues. The Masterplan on agricultural research was published in 19911 and was the culmination of the deliberations of a working group, established in 1989. Priority-setting was again carried out taking account of national development objectives, using weights and translating them into research system objectives. High-priority commodity and factor research topics were defined together with medium-priority categories. Decisions were taken to address only the high-priority topics in the short to medium term. The priorities chosen have in general again been endorsed by donors, who have funded and collaborated on areas of interest to them. Kenya established a Agricultural Research master plan in 1991.2 This was based on a comprehensive review by KARI research scientists and administrators. Priorities were guided by the research priorities in four major policy documents3 of the Government of Kenya, which outlined the role and obligations of the National Agricultural Research System. The method used in setting priorities for research programs in KARI was the checklist scoring model because of its ease of use and implementation, limited data set requirement and the ability to incorporate multiple objectives and qualitative information. Again, the services of ISNAR were utilized in the planning and priority-setting process. Commodity and factor research programs were identified. Priorities were set by KARI scientists for commodities and factors using a range of comprehensive parameters which enabled weights to be assigned. There is a definite feeling of ownership on the part of the NARS. Generally speaking, donors have been supportive of the priorities set and have funded programs and activities, where they feel they have comparative advantage/interest. I National Agricultural Research Strategy and Plan, 2 Vols. 2 Kenya's Agricultural Research Priorities to the Year 2000. 3 Sessional Paper No. I of 1986 on 'Economic Management for Renewed Growth". The National Development Plan of 1989-93. The National Council of Science and Technology Report on National Priority Areas. No. 30, October 1989. The National Agricultural Research Project 1986. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 3 9  Considerable skill has been shown by KARI management in ensuring that donor budgets are fully integrated into KARI's total research plan. 3.2 Common Elements of Masterplanning The broad guiding principles used in the planning exercises were similar in all countries visited. They were to prioritize research so as to guide the detailed design of research programs and projects in line with national development goals. All plans recognized the necessity to consolidate and down-size the large national systems to make them sustainable on the basis of intemal resources. Interestingly, in most countries, this involved the consolidation of agricultural and livestock research under one plan -- a necessity in considering natural resources sustainability and environmental issues. The planning process highlighted the necessity to improve incentives, conditions of service and accountability by strengthening research management, financial administration and support services. Important aspects of the planning process concemed development, consultation and expansion of extemal linkages. At the base of the planning process in all countries was the recognition of the need to move from supply-driven activities to a much more client and demand-driven set of parameters. Identification of clients figure prominently in all plans, together with a recognition of the need to involve farmers in the process of priority-setting. However, the team believes that the level of farmer involvement is low and that there is a significant lack of appropriate methodology to incorporate farmer perspectives in priority setting. A study of the Masterplans reveals few major differences in methodology adopted in the countries visited. Initial work involved the formation of working groups and the production of papers on specific research topics. Consultants were generally employed to create a broader vision of the priority-setting process and, in nearly all instances, ISNAR provided invaluable assistance to national programs in the provision of backstopping and in developing techniques of priority-setting and examining management issues. A significant feature was the unanimous adoption of the simpler checklist/weighting methods of priority-setting, rather than the more demanding mathematical and econometrics approaches which require much more data collection, analysis and time. On balance, the deliberations of the working groups have arrived at sets of priorities which are acceptable and defensible. The process of Masterplanning would not have been possible without significant funding support from multilateral and bilateral donors. The processes, especially in Tanzania, were long, tied up a significant amount of scientific and administrative time, and were generally undertaken with insufficient planning. Nevertheless, the process was important in providing a sense of ownership by national systems and was worthwhile, since new ideas and dimensions were introduced to scientists' planning programs. Linkages were made to development objectives in the plans which gave the final output considerable credibility. 10 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 3  SPAAR undoubtedly played a significant role in focusing attention on the need for NARSs to seriously address research planning and move away from "wish lists" which had previously been a feature of donor/NARS contacts. The workshops organized by SPAAR also raised the profile of agricultural research in development at the political level. The Review Team's discussion and study of the evolution of the FFA process, and the development of stakeholders' thinking and dialogue, indicated a distinct acceptance of the necessity to include the regional research themes as an important element in NARS priority- setting. This is a logical outcome as the process of priority-setting and modes of improving organization and management in NARSs become institutionalized. However, this opens up new challenges for NARSs as procedures for open and frank discussion and mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts on genuine differences of opinion relating to national scientific and economic policy, determination of relative national competence for execution of regional research projects, and modes of information sharing, reporting, and fund allocation will need to be put in place. None of the existing Masterplans explicitly incorporate regional research activities and priorities. Development of the FFAs has also thrown into relief the relative weakness of the NARSs in policy research and the need to strengthen abilities in this field. The FFAs, particularly those for Southern Africa, make a strong case for attention to be paid to policy analysis. However, only minor attempts have been made to address this issue in the Masterplans of one or two of the countries visited by the Review Team. 3.3 Priorities in the Masterplans Generally speaking, strategic planning and priority-setting exercises have been carried out in a thorough fashion which has involved considerable staff involvement and significant planning and managerial inputs from external sources. The processes have served to produce a sense of ownership of the priorities on the part of the scientists of NARSs. Priorities set tend to be essentially of an adaptive nature and from that point of view realistic and geared to immediate needs. All plans allude to the extreme difficulties related to the provision of operational funding. The Masterplanning exercises have produced priorities which, by and large, accord well with development issues. They also, to a great extent, seek to address identifiable problems which are susceptible to technical solution and have a more prominent linkage to farmers problems than was formerly the case, i.e. are much more demand-driven. It is questionable whether additional farmer inputs would significantly improve outcomes unless mechanisms are developed for obtaining clearer indications from farmers of their priorities. This is not an easy process. Techniques for achieving such inputs have been suggested for Ghana, Tanzania and Mali and require further assessment. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 3 11  Lemon 1: The Masterplanning process has had an important and significant effect in institutionalizing priority-setting mechanisms in NARSs and in aligning agricultural research with national development objectives. The cost of the operation in staff involvement and time is high, but it is difficult to see how ownership of strategy and plans can be established without the evident use of internal scientific know-how and experience. The process has had a marked value in capacity building for planning in NARSs. Lesson 2: Complicated methods of priority-setting proved difficult to implement in the formulation of NARS Masterplans. Generally, national systems adopted weighted checklist systems, which enabled modifiers and local value judgments to be incorporated in the priorities set. Priority-setting needs to be well-supported by the timely provision of hardware, generally by donors. Lesson 3: The use of carefully-selected key consultants from within the country and external sources was justified. Consultants need to have considerable experience of the development process and the countries/national research systems. The final selection of consultants should be a national system responsibility. The role of ISNAR in the provision of important know- how, techniques and backstopping in assisting in the Masterplanning exercise was invaluable. It is questionable whether the published strategy documentation could have been achieved in the absence of this input. Lesson 4: Additional consideration needs to be given to the realities of collaborative regional research. NARS management, while appreciating the potential benefits of such activity, is conscious of the necessity to create stable, well-funded and self-confident national systems as a first priority, and to avoid the dissipation of scarce national capacity and funding. The regional research agenda therefore needs to be very carefully identified and relative comparative advantages fully exploited to mutual advantage. Lesson 5: While there has been a marked improvement in aligning national priorities with demand-led perspectives through the Masterplanning exercise, further efforts are required to develop adequate techniques to ensure that farm-level issues are fully incorporated into research agendas at the national level. While techniques exist for the incorporation of fanners' views at the local level, there are still difficulties in involving farmers in priority-setting at the national level. Lesson 6: In spite of the emphasis put on policy research in the FFAs, Masterplans developed have hardly addressed the topic. This is a reflection of the weakness of NARS staffing in this area. Lesson 7: Strategies and priorities set have, in general, been endorsed by both national governments and donors. Donors, however, are still comnmitted to long- standing research projects. Care is therefore needed to ensure that donor perspectives are not at variance with priorities agreed on in national strategies. 12 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 3  4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FFAs: REORGANIZATION OF THE NARSs The FFAs advocate reorganization of the NARSs in order to improve their institutional and management capacity. The aim is to put NARS managers in the driving seat and to make them more accountable. 4.1 Legal Status of the NARSs During the last five years there has been a general move to change the legal status of the NARSs, usually from that of a government department to a public parastatal type of organization. The aim has been to free research systems from the strictures of the civil service, encourage more client-oriented and efficient management, allow the adoption of staff conditions of service that offer better incentives, and open the way for partial financing of the NARSs by private firms and non-governmental organizations. These moves are consistent with the recommendation in the FFAs for more effective, transparent and client-oriented management systems in the NARSs. The Review Team found that in most of the countries visited, moves towards such institutional reform predated the preparation of the FFA. In Kenya, KARI was created as 1 of 6 parastatal research institutions in 1979. With the assistance of ISNAR, the research system was subsequently reorganized, and all agriculture and livestock research except tea, coffee, forestry and fisheries placed within KARI in 1986, during implementation of the first phase of the multi-donor funded National Agricultural Research Project (NARP-1). In Uganda, NARO was established in 1992 as a semi-autonomous parastatal responsible for the coordination and management of all agricultural research in the country. However the reorganization of the research system started in 1988 with the creation of an independent, self-accounting department for research, with its own Permanent Secretary, within the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. It is the result of significant lobbying by national opinion leaders and the strong support of the present political leadership of the country. In Senegal, Institut senegalais de recherches agricoles (ISRA) was established as an EPIC parastatal (Etablissement Public d Caractere Industriel et Commercial) in the late 1970s. Legislation has now been prepared to convert it to an EPST organization (Etablissement Public a Caractere Scientifique et Technique) that would allow it even more autonomy, particularly in setting attractive conditions of service for its staff. In Ghana, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was established in 1968 as a semi-autonomous organization to advise government, and to promote and coordinate research efforts which are divided among several ministries. After a CSIR/ISNAR review of the NARS, the World Bank-funded NARP which started in 1991 brought about further institutional changes in CSIR that have strengthened its research coordination role. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4 13  However, in the two FFA pilot countries, institutional reforms have occurred at the same time or soon after the preparation of the FFA. They were based on earlier suggestions by ISNAR, and occurred as part of donor-funded projects. Even in these countries, the process of reform started long before they were nominated as pilot countries. In Mali, IER was converted from a government department to a semi-autonomous self-accounting EPA research organization (Etablissement Public a Caractere Adninistratif) in 1993. But the drive for reform started in 1985. Studies were conducted between 1985 and 1988. Work on drawing up a strategic plan and formulating reforms started with ISNAR in 1990. The exception to the general move toward more independent parastatal organizations in the NARSs, has been in Tanzania. As part of the conditions for credit effectiveness of the World Bank-led, multi-donor funded National Agricultural and Livestock Research Project (NALRP) which commenced in 1989, the existing semi-autonomous research parastatals (Tanzania Agricultural Research Organization, Tanzania Livestock Research Organization) were abolished, and their functions consolidated fully within the government civil service structure as the DRT in the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development. This was meant to reduce costs and duplication of initiatives. Although there have been significant reforms of the research management system of DRT since then, the Review Team got the impression that the civil service nature of the organization results in reduced discretionary authority of the research managers. Lesson 8: Reform of the legal status of the NARSs is a long-term process. It needs firm support from national and international organizations. -esson 9: The moves toward setting-up of independent semi-autonomous NARSs have had a positive effect on their operations by increasing the flexibility and discretionary authority of research managers, and should continue to be encouraged. Lesson 10: In the move to achieve other objectives (e.g., removal of duplication between research organizations, reduction of costs to the government budget, etc.), care should be taken not to compromise the existing independence, however limited, of the NARSs. 4.2 Decentralization As part of the institutional reform of the NARSs, there has been a shift toward the increased decentralization of management systems. There is an emphasis on matrix management systems which give more responsibilities to RegionalVZonal Research Directors, who supervise most of the researchers and programs. Technical/scientific direction is often provided by headquarters-based Directors. In Tanzania, 7 zonal Directorships have been established, and in Mali there are 5 research center Directors. In Uganda, 7 regional research institutes have been established, and in Ghana there are a number of virtually independent institutes and research organizations. 14 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4  The Review Team got the impression that, except for Senegal, there has been a general move in the last 5 years to increase the autonomy of regional/zonal research Directors. Partially decentralized financial management systems exist (Ghana) or are being put in place (see Chapter 5). Where studies by ISNAR and others have detected a weakness in the decentralized system, apex coordinating mechanisms have been put in place, e.g. the National Agricultural Research Council (NARC) in Tanzania and Ghana, the restructured Comite National de la Recherche Agronomique (CNRA) in Mali, etc. Annual research plans (Action Plans) are initiated by scientists in the zones/regions, where systems for consultation with potential users (farmers, extension agencies, NGOs, etc.) have been put in place. The process of regionaUzonal planning involving users has been most institutionalized in Mali (see ChapLef 5). Only in Senegal did the Review Team detect a move towards the increased ralization of management systems. This seems to be driven by difficulties encountered in preparing financial reports on time in a system which has down-sized considerably in the recent past only by reducing non-scientific staff (see Chapter 3.1). Lesson 11: Thc gencral move towards more decentralized decision-making in the NARSs is facilitating, and is reinforced by moves to have more client or user-oriented research programs. The moves have been universally welcomed by the clients and partners of the NARS and their collaborators. Lesson 12: Having a decentralized system does not in itself reduce the management problems of the NARSs. In fact, the creation of a coordinated research program, and financial management might be rendered more difficult. There might be a temptation to solve these problems in the short run by centralizing management. This should be avoided. Instead, efforts should be directed towards making the decentralized system function better. e.g. through providing adequate incentives for administrative staff, training of staff based in the regions/zones, and the setting-up of consultative bodies such as Advisory Committees. 4.3 Rationalization of Staffing One of the problems of the NARSs during the past decade has been overstaffing in a context of declining research budgets. The result has been that: operational budgets have declined in relative as well as absolute terms, conditions of service have deteriorated and morale as well as scientific output have declined. One of the recommendations of many ISNAR and other review missions, which has been incorporated in the FFAs, is therefore the rationalization of the staffing of the NARSs. This is usually expected to involve actual reduction in staff numbers (the so-called down-sizing exercise) and evaluation of existing staff in order to place them in the appropriate scientific grade or level. The objective is to improve the enabling environment for productive work by increasing recurrent budgets, and salaries for staff retained. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4 15  4.3.1 Down-sizing The Review Team found that most of the NARSs have implemented very significant staff reduction exercises over the last 3 - 5 years. The extent of the down-sizing would have been inconceivable 5 - 10 years ago. It has occurred, in many instances, under pressure from central governments which have been required to make significant reductions in the public sector as a part of their Structural Adjustment Programs, and in some cases, this process commenced before the preparation of the FFAs. In Senegal, at the request of the government, the staff numbers in ISRA were reduced from about 1,420 to about 860 in an initial exercise in 1985. As part of the World Bank- funded Agricultural Research Project, a further reduction occurred in 1989 that brought total staffing down to 575, including 158 researchers. In this exercise, while research programs were cut and some research stations closed, the number of scientists was not reduced. The resulting difficulties that ISRA encountered in terms of insufficient technical and administrative support for scientists, e.g. in accounting services, is now evident. Unlike Senegal, down-sizing in the other countries has involved reduction in scientists as well as support staff. In Mali, the number of staff in Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER) is being reduced from 240 senior staff in the civil service Category A to 110 scientists. Ten percent of the original number of senior staff were transferred to extension, while the rest are staying as support staff or are being sent for training. In Uganda, about 25 percent of the scientific staff were redeployed to the ministry when NARO was formed. In Tanzania, some research staff were released when the parastatals were abolished, and the remaining staff are being redeployed from program areas that are no longer of high-priority in the Masterplan, to high-priority research areas and stations. A total of 88 scientists, 102 technicians and 41 assistants are to be redeployed in three phases which started in June 1993. Although 26 had been redeployed by November 1994, the Review Team noted that the exercise appears to be constrained by lack of funding to finance staff transfers, and lack of incentives to staff to move from their present locations where they are well-established, in the absence of financial incentives. Lesson 13: Significant down-sizing of NARSs in order to free resources for recurrent expenditure is now possible and has occurred in the NARSs. Lesson 14: In the down-sizing exercise, care must be taken to ensure that cuts are made proportionally, in order not to end up with unbalanced staffing profiles that may result in management problems. Lesson 15: Down-sizing must be accompanied by a significant increase in salaries and by better conditions of service, if the low staff morale in NARSs is not to suffer even more as a result of the uncertainty and insecurity introduced by the exercise. The team encountered such uncertainty in many of the reforming NARSs visited. 16 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4  4.3.2 Staff Evaluation During the down-sizing exercise, researchers have usually been evaluated and reclassified. In all cases, evaluation panels have been constituted that included people from outside the NARSs, usually from the universities, extension agencies and private firms. In at least one case (Mali), professionals from Europe, and from other African countries participated in the evaluation. This exercise has allowed staff to be put into their proper research grade, and in some cases to be removed from the NARSs. The Review Team was impressed with the thoroughness with which the exercise was undertaken and believe that the exercise has had a positive effect. In addition to the one-time evaluation referred to here, NARSs also need to institutionalize annual evaluation procedures that will ensure that researchers continue to produce the quantity and quality of output desired. The team observed that progress has been made in this respect in Mali, Senegal, Ghana and Kenya. In Tanzania and Uganda, appropriate annual evaluation procedures have yet to be put in place. Lesson 16: One-time evaluation of the researchers in the NARSs, using panels that include external evaluators, has resulted in the appropriate grading of staff, and has helped legitimize the staff of the NARSs internationally. Appropriate periodic staff evaluation systems still need to be put in place in some cases to ensure that the desired quality and quantity of output are obtained. 4.4 Staff Conditions It is generally accepted that the salary and conditions of service of researchers in the NARSs is poor by international standards, although salaries are in most cases the same as those received by university staff, and are slightly higher than those of civil servants in general. For example, in Ghana, salaries presently range from $1,301 per annum for an Assistant Research Officer in CSIR to $2,583 for a Director of Institute/Chief Research Officer. Very low salaries in some countries have encouraged staff to seek additional means of income, seek rent and other activities, which have constrained their research output. All the institutional reforms encouraged in the FFAs, and implemented by the NARSs in the past 5 years have therefore had, as one of their objectives, an improvement in the conditions of service and consequently the morale of the researchers. The Review Team found that there had been some, although very limited, success in improving conditions of service for researchers. This has been accomplished by setting up semi-autonomous institutes which have been able sometimes to negotiate better conditions of service for their staff who are no longer civil servants. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4 17  The biggest change has been in Uganda where very unusually, and innovatively, donors agreed to fund salaries of researchers at 60 percent of the difference between the "minimum living wage" determined by United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and actual government salaries. Under the Agricultural Research and Training Project (ARTP) the World Bank allowed use of its financing to cover 100 percent salaries of NARO staff in the first 2 years, dropping to 70 percent in the third year, and declining progressively. UNDP has been requested by donors to prepare a plan for the disengagement of donors from this incentive scheme. The new salaries at NARO were initially up to 10 times higher than government salaries, and 20 percent higher than science teachers in the university. This was possible because of strong support from the Head of State for scientific activities and the instructions to treat scientists as a special case in civil service reforms. In Tanzania, the civil service status of DRT has meant that all attempts to create special conditions of service for its scientists have not succeeded to date. In fact, the abolition of the parastatals and the integration of researchers within the government system has resulted in a significant drop in salaries for researchers. The expectation that conditions of researchers can be improved outside a general civil service reform appear unrealistic. The Government of Tanzania is not likely to treat researchers, or even all Ministry of Agriculture workers, as a special case. Lesson 17: Improvement of the conditions of service of NARS staff is only possible if the NARSs have a semi-autonomous legal status, and other steps such as the preparation of new schemes of service, are taken. Lesson 18: Chances for the much-desired improvement of staff conditions of service, and consequently of morale in the short rn in the NARSs will be possible only if donors are willing to be innovative in allowing their funds to be used to improve the conditions of service of researchers. There is, of course, the question of the sustainability of such support i.e. the ability of governments to take over such funding when donors withdraw. In any case, it is clear that such support should not be on a project basis as was done by individual donors in the past, but should be on a system-wide basis, as in Uganda. 4.5 Accounting Systems For a CFM to work, to inspire donor confidence in funding the NARSs, and to allow NARS managers greater autonomy, it is essential that there be reliable and transparent accounting procedures in place. Donors as well as national governments must be able to know exactly where their funds have been spent, and research managers need to know on a timely basis how they are progressing in spending their budget allocation as the financial year progresses. All the reforms instituted by NARSs have therefore had the institutionalization of a transparent and reliable accounting system as a centerpiece. The Review Team noted that there has been considerable progress in this area. 18 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4  In Tanzania, an accounting software (SUN system) was fully installed in the headquarters of DRT by late 1992. It was supplied and installed by an accounting firm that provided training and consultancy services up to September 1994. The NALRP project accountant and 7 other accounting staff have been trained in use the system, and the project accounts are now fully computerized. Accounts are produced showing expenditure for a given period by the DRT program, and by donor, and by cost head (furniture, maintenance, capital, etc.). The same software (SUN) has been installed and is being used in Mali and regional accounting staff trained. Data for 1994 accounts are now being entered. In Uganda, NARO is moving to program and project budgeting in which researchers are being asked to cost each item of experiment. A computerized accounting system is being put in place with the assistance of a resident advisor. In Kenya, a decentralized computerized system already exists, and in Ghana some of the research institutes already have computerized systems. CSIR plans to introduce a unified system over the next couple of years. Only in Senegal, as mentioned earlier, is there a move away from a decentralized accounting system. The Review Team is of the opinion that, in all the countries visited, adequate computerized transparent fund-accounting systems are in place, or are being put in place. Lesson 19: With the hardware and software available commercially, it is possible to install and operate appropriate decentralized accounting systems in the NARSs. Adequate progress has been made in this regard by the NARSs. The SUN and similar systems provide the degree of transparency that is normally required by donors. 4.6 Financial Management Having an adequate accounting system in place is one thing -- being able to use it appropriately for management purposes is another. While a start has been made in this regard in most of the NARSs visited, the Review Team found that this is still an area of weakness for the NARSs. In most NARSs, accounts are studied by senior managers only at the end of the year. The actual use of financial reports for day-to-day control by research management is just beginning. Most of the NARSs now have projects through which technical assistance is being provided in this area. They will need continued support in this area. Lesson 20: Computerized program accounting systems in the NARSs now provide the opportunity for effective financial management. NARSs need continued training and assistance to make effective use of the systems. 4.7 Consolidated Funding Mechanisms (CFMs) At the Tenth SPAAR Plenary Session in May 1990, there was agreement that the issue of adequate financing for recurrent costs of NARSs should be addressed by donors and their African partners. The World Bank took the lead in designing the so-called CFM that would treat the funding of agreed research programs as part of capital investment. The understanding of the Review Team is that the CFM would work as follows. All research activities in a NARS FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4 19  are costed separately, including all direct and indirect costs related to a particular activity. Finance is then secured for an activity from government or donors. An activity is only taken on when enough funding has been committed for it to be completed. Donors and governments must agree to allow independent scientific and financial audits through a NARC. ARFs are regarded as simple prototypes of CFMs. Among the countries visited by the Review Team, Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana have established ARFs. The ARF in Kenya was formally established by the KARI Board of Management in February 1990 with a grant of $500,000, as part of the USAID component of the NARP. The fund management is independent of KARI and USAID with 6 members appointed in their personal capacity. ARF provides funding for contract adaptive research projects by non-KARI scientists. A maximum of $25,000 is provided for each 3-year project, to cover operational costs only (no salary supplementation or capital items are financed). The Kenya ARF is not a true CFM. USAID provided an advance to KARI, which on- lends to the fund. When receipts are provided by the grantees, these are transmitted to USAID which reimburses the KARI account. There were some initial problems in getting grantees, particularly from the University of Nairobi, to file returns, but the situation has improved considerably. When government funding did not come through as expected for KARI scientists, they began to question their exclusion from ARF. Instead of putting funds for them in the existing ARF, the World Bank then set up an "Adaptive Research Fund" with the same management and procedures as ARF, but for KARI scientists only. Again, this is not a true CEM, since KARI advances monies to the fund (initially for 3-month operations, now moving to a 9-month advance), and claims reimbursement from the World Bank using the receipts of expenditures from the fund. In Ghana, the Research Grants Scheme, which was established under the NARP in 1991, to provide funding for contract research by non-CSIR scientists, operates in a similar way to the ARF in Kenya. In the view of the Review Team, it is the Tanzania ARF that comes closest to the idea of a CGM, and its experience has clearly highlighted the practical problems in making the concept operational. The constitution of the ARF was drafted in October 1992, and it became operational in July 1993. Its main objective is to provide a transparent financing mechanism for the DRT to receive and disburse funds in support of priority research activities contained in the NALRM. It is managed by a 12-member management team made up of senior DRT managers and representatives from the extension service, the universities, the private sector, rural financing institutions and the donor community. It is intended to fund contract research by non-DRT researchers, as well as collaborative research between DRT and other researchers. All necessary conditions for the operation of the fund have been fulfilled and the fund is fully operational. Research proposals have been received, reviewed, and approved for funding. Some initial problems were encountered with the quality of research proposals received. This was not surprising given the lack of experience of the scientists in the preparation of such research proposals. The total cost of approved projects is $621,000 distributed over 3 years. 20 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4  It is estimated that the ARF can handle up to $5 million over the same period. The requests for funding of the ARF have been put to donors and discussed at consultative meetings. The only pledges received have been from the World Bank, the ADB, and the Government of Tanzania. The only payments received have been from the ADB and the government. There were initial problems with the transfer of World Bank commitments to the ARF. This indicated that even in the World Bank, the major proponent of the CFM, steps had not been taken to put the legal and financial mechanisms in place for such a fund. The problem appears to have been that the establishment of "Secondary Special Accounts" is not permitted. However, the Review Team was informed in Nairobi that permission had just been received from the Bank's headquarters for the establishment of such an account. No bilateral donor has made a pledge to the ARF in Tanzania. Discussions with donor representatives in Tanzania, as well as in other countries visited, showed considerable reluctance to contribute. Apparently, the concept of such a fund is contrary to their normal mode of operation, which is project-by-project funding. The donors are not convinced about the utility of an ARF. This raises the question as to why the process has been allowed to reach this stage. There was very visible disappointment in DRT about the apparent lack of financial support for the ARF. However, the Review Team also saw signs that a few bilateral donor representatives are seriously considering how they could make contributions to an ARF. The idea of moving towards program rather than project funding is gaining more acceptance. Lesson 21: Agreement by donors with the principle of the CFM, and pronouncements at SPAAR meetings does not necessarily mean operational support at the field or country desk level. Expectations in the FFA about donor support for the ARF seem over-optimistic. Lesson 22: When new and innovative concepts, such as the CFM, are agreed to by donors, they should take steps to ensure that the legal framework is in place so that implementation can proceed as soon as their partners in the NARSs have fulfilled the conditionalities. Otherwise disappointment and disillusionment among the NARSs will hamper collaboration in the future. Lesson 23: One donor can lead the pack in experimenting with new ways of funding NARSs. The example of USAID in Kenya is illuminating. Donors agreed to create an ARF in Kenya in 1989, and USAID got it started in 1992. There has been only a token contribution from one other donor (about $30,000 from ODA). It now seems that the ideas is gradually catching on. For example, the ODA field official is now apparently working on convincing ODA headquarters to agree to a more substantial contribution, and the World Bank is working on setting up a "Secondary Special Account" that would allow it to contribute to an ARF. Lesson 24: An innovative NARS can devise ways of getting around donor reticence in contributing to an ARF. The experience of KARI in parcelling out its program to different donors, and in devising ways of getting around reluctance of donors to put their monies in a CFM is evident. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4 21  4.8 Funding for Agricultural Research Productive NARSs require a stable, sufficient and timely supply of funds for agreed priority research programs. A major constraint to effective research is the inadequacy of funding, especially the lack of provision of operating funds. The shortage of local resources and the small proportion of research budgets allocated to operations and maintenance is exacerbated by the fact that donor support to specific activities and projects does not usually extend to the local costs of non-incremental recurrent research expenditure. To improve the situation, recent reform programs have reduced staffing levels in an effort to bring budgets more in line with national financing capacities and release resources for recurrent expenditures (see Chapter 3.1). Based on the agreed priorities in Masterplans, national governments are being requested to commit increased amounts to agricultural research for defined periods, and donors are being requested to coordinate their actions and to provide supplementary funding as a group so that the total research program is funded. 4.8.1 Funding for Infrastructure The major elements of the FFAs, particularly that for Southern Africa, focus on the so- called "research software." This is predicated on the belief that the research hardware (buildings, equipment, fields) is basically in place and that the greatest problems with the NARSs lie in the poorly-functioning management systems. In every country that the Review Team visited, except Kenya and Ghana, major capital expenditure on rehabilitation and construction of research facilities has been part of the reform programs being implemented. In all countries, significant expenditure on equipment and transport facilities has taken place. It is the team's general impression that most of the reforms taking place would have been invalid without such an investment. Fortunately, this has been recognized by the designers of the projects, who have made adequate provisions for such investments. Lsson 25: Focus only on the "software" of NARS in the reform process is unjustified. Equal attention must be paid to the "hardware." 4.8.2 Government Funding The Review Team found that based on Masterplans, several national governments appear to be making increased contributions to agricultural research. More important, commitments are being made for medium-term periods (5 years), which improves the prospects for more stable funding for the NARSs, and govermnents are meeting their commitments. 22 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4  In Tanzania, the widespread discussions and consultation that have accompanied the preparation of the Masterplan have increased the awareness and commitment to agricultural research on all sides. The government agricultural policy document calls for an increase in funding of agricultural research from 0.4 percent to 1.5 percent of agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since preparation of the Masterplan in Uganda, funding of agricultural research by the government has been regular. Although the amount is still not as much as NARO would like, it has been increasing. NARO's recurrent budget from the government has increased 30 percent in each of last 2 years, and increase which is greater than the rate of inflation. Also, the university received an allocation of about $300,000 for agricultural research this year, the first such in a long while. In Mali, the government has signed a contract with IER for increased contributions over a 5-year period. However, the proportion of the total research budget to be funded from <Y-iestic sources is not projected to increase. Since the signing of the contract, the government contribution has been paid on time each quarter, a substantial improvement on past performance. In Ghana, the government has committed itself to progressively increasing the proportion of total program funding from domestic sources from 32 percent to 77 percent over the next 5 years. Lesson 26: The discussions surrounding the FFAs and the preparation of Masterplans in the NARSs has increased the awareness of and commitment to agricultural research in the countries visited by the Review Team. The experience has shown that it is possible to get national governments to make regular commitments and payments to agricultural research in partnership with donors. 4.8.3 Donor Funding As indicated earlier, one of the problems with donor support to agricultural research in the past has been the enclave nature of some donor projects with conditions that have differed between donors and programs supported by the national governments. In some cases, this has meant that critical areas of research have not been funded while less important areas have been well-financed because of a particular donor's interest in that area. Again, the Review Team observed significant improvement in the countries visited. With the Masterplans as a basis, donor financing of the NARS is now better coordinated and is tending toward more program than project funding. In a couple of countries, the World Bank has agreed to be a donor of last resort in ensuring that the total research program is funded. Progress has been easier where NARS management has been very innovative in parcelling off its total program into discrete projects which can be "sold" to individual donors, thus allowing them to continue to provide finance in the traditional project financing mode. Senegal and Kenya provide the best examples of such success. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4 23  In Kenya, the Masterplan served as guide for the multi-donfr NARP. KARI management has used it as a basis for sharing out its research program to different donors: * World Bank [regional (adaptive) research, infrastructure, training of support staff] * Canada (graduate training in all fields) * USAID (maize, sorghum, millet, goats, horticulture in NARP II, research management and training, graduate training related to its project activities) * European Union (EU) (soil/water manage in arid zones, soil fertilizer and plant nutrition, range management, infrastructure, graduate training, in-service training abroad) * Netherlands (soil survey, wildlife diseases, seed technology, dairy and poultry, core funding for overheads) * ODA (animal health, crop protection, virology, epidemiology and socio-economics of animal health in NARP H) * Japan (macadamia nuts) * UNDP (horticulture, dryland farming) * Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) (soil/water management for drylands, forage). On the other hand, where NARS management has favored a more programmatic approach to financing its new Masterplan, progress in getting donor support has been slow. The reluctance of donors to relinquish the hands-on control which traditional modes of project financing gives them is evident. However, there is some evidence of progress in this direction. The best example of such progress is in Mali, where the major donors -- the Netherlands, USAID and the World Bank -- have agreed to move to program funding. Donors have made commitments, and have actually started to provide non-salary recurrent funding in a couple of countries. However, the World Bank and the ADB have actually made payments outside their projects. Lesson 27: Progress in getting donor support for agreed priority programs in the Masterplans has been much faster where the NARSs can "carve up" their program into projects which bilateral donors can fund using their traditional project financing mode. Donors are still very reluctant to move to program financing and CFMs. 4.8.4 Other Funding Sources The FFAs call for increased tapping of the private sector, and self-generated funds for financing the NARSs. The Review Team found that although there is some scepticism on the part of the management of NARSs regarding the practicability of deriving much funding from such sources, aggressive action is being taken in a number of countries. 24 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4  In Tanzania, a revenue retention scheme was recommended to government about two years ago, and approved in July 1994. The revenue from sale of farm produce and services will be retained and used in the research stations. In Ghana, the research system has signed an undertaking to generate up to 30 percent of its recurrent budget from commercial activities (seed production, sale of agricultural produce, etc.) within 5 years. Management staff are now undergoing orientation courses in commercial management. Although the management of the affected NARSs all claim to be taking care to ensure that research endeavors are not sacrificed for the sake of money generation through self-financing activities, the Review Team is quite concerned about the problems that might arise in conflicts of interest between revenue- generating and research activities. Attempts to get the private sector to contribute more to the financing of agricultural research, either by directly funding specific research activities or by imposition of a cess are being pursued in all the countries. In Mali, cotton research is completely funded by the Malian Textile Company (Compagnie malienne de developpement des textiles - CMIDT) through contracts signed with IER. In Kenya, tea and coffee research are funded by the respective Development Boards. In Tanzania, a workshop was held with private sector representatives in July 1994. It developed stfategies for private sector participation in agricultural research, including the development of the legal frameworks for memoranda of understanding. A number of institutions have since made some commitments, e.g. the Sugar Development Corporation has agreed to allocate 2 Tanzanian Shillings per bag of sugar that it sells to research, the Tanzania Coffee Board will pay a cess of 0.125 percent of its sales, the Tanzania Cotton Board has agreed to pay 2 shillings per kg of seed cotton, and the Tobacco Industry 50 cents per kg of leaf tobacco sold. Unlike commercial activities, the Review Team feels that such contributions to the funding of agricultural research are not likely to be compromising to the research activities of scientists. Leson 28: There is potential for increasing the direct support for agricultural research from the private sector and parastatal orgamzations. Once the NARSs have developed a Masterplan, they are pursuing such opportunities vigorously. Success in getting support from the private sector depends on the creation of the necessary legal frameworks, and the provision of adequate incentives, bearing in mind the profit motive of private enterprises. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 4 25  5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FFAs: IMPROVING LINKAGES Three of the 6 principles of the FFAs (see Chapter 2) involve the improvement of linkages in the agricultural research systems. Effective research - extension - farmer linkages are essential if research programs are to be client-oriented and research is to be translated into increased productivity and sustainability at the farm level. Linkages with international research institutions and donors must be effective if appropriate technologies are to be borrowed from other countries, and critical donor financing is to be obtained to complement often insufficient domestic sources of funds. Close ties to neighboring countries are required to ensure that there is minimum duplication of effort in a region and that NARSs pool their scarce human and material resources and exploit their individual comparative advantages. 5.1 Research - Extension - Farmer Linkages As part of the reorganization of the NARSs, especially the Masterplan preparation process, as well as the formulation of program of "action plans," the NARSs visited by the Review Team have made considerable efforts to improve research - extension - farmer linkages over the last 3 years. At the onset of the reform process in Tanzania, poor research-extension-farmer linkages were recognized as one of the 5 major problems facing the NARSs (Sempeho 1994). As indicated in Chapter 3, attempts were made to incorporate the extension and farmer perspectives during the preparation of the Masterplan. However, it is during the on-going process of the preparation of zonal plans and research program plans that the most effort is being made to incorporate extension and farmer perspectives. Plans for all 7 zones should have been completed by now. The Review Team observed that the process of making zonal plans and the prioritization of the research programs at zonal level, is a very useful exercise. However, it felt that the time allocated to the exercise was not sufficient to allow the incorporation of all available information. The level of participation of institutionalized stakeholders e.g. zonal extension staff, Marketing Boards, NGOs etc. appears to have been adequate. However, effective participation of farmers' representatives was more difficult to achieve. While in some areas, such as the Northern Zone (coffee) and the South-Eastern Mountains (tea), farmer organizations exist and facilitate the activity, they are absent in other areas. In the Lake Zone, the DRT/Farming Systems Research (FSR) team has set up farmer-research groups, due to which there have been interesting changes in the research agenda and calendar. It is clear that where groups exist and are used to obtain farmers inputs into program planning, which is not always the case, they greatly improve farmer-research linkages. 26 F:A Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5  In the Review Team's opinion, attempts to institutionalize researcher - farmer linkages at the national level have gone furthest in Mali. A hierarchical system of user consultation has been set up within the IER programming, priority-setting and reporting process, to be overseen by the CNRA. CNRA was established 30 years ago to provide a consultative forum for the major stakeholders of the NARSs. Because of its large size, and other problems, it did not function effectively until its reorganization as part of the on-going reform of the system. It now has a large base consisting of regional and national sub-committees, a relatively small apex consisting of an 8-member committee (see Box 1). Its agenda includes the reviewing of research projects which are expected to be a maximum of 3 years in duration. In the attempt to ensure adequate farmer participation in setting the regional research agenda, an NGO was commissioned to identify farmer organizations in each zone. A total of 15 farmer organizations were selected in each region, each of which selected a member to represent it on the Users Committee, using past experience with research as the major criterion. It is certainly too early to assess the effectiveness of farmer participation in IER's Users Committees. Apparently, farmers participate effectively in the zonal committees where deliberations are conducted in local languages. Questions have arisen about their effectiveness in the national committees where deliberations are conducted in French, even though interpretation is provided. As in Tanzania, IER has developed FSR methodology for elucidating farmers views -- the Technology Development and Transfer model. Consideration might be given to using such methods to improve researcher-farmer linkages in zones where FSR teams exist. Among the 3 East African countries visited, Kenya has the largest number of commercial farmers groups which are well integrated in the agricultural marketing and information systems. For some commodities, notably tea and coffee, research is carried out in specialized institutes financed by farmer organizations. These institutes are also responsible for extension and seed distribution activities to their members. Large commercial farmers also obtain technology and advice directly from KARI, the universities, and from foreign sources. Nevertheless, Kenya still has a majority of small farmers who are only partially integrated into the modern marketing system, and concentrate mainly on subsistence crop and livestock production. This large group is the major target group of KARI. Its policy is to integrate FSR within the commodity research programs in order to narrow the gap between researchers' conception of problems to be solved and those of producers. In Uganda, the initial priority-setting exercise had limited stakeholder participation. It was based mainly on memoranda prepared by scientists, including university staff, followed by discussions in workshops. Revision of the priorities in 1994 involved more widespread participation by stakeholders including more junior NARO staff, the university, processors, farmer representatives, extension agents, etc. The Review Team understands that the revised priorities are not very different from the initial set. NARO is currently re-examining the results for general areas (natural resource management, socio-economics, post-harvest, IPM, etc.) where generalists and farmers had difficulty assigning ranks using the scoring method used. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5 27  In all the countries visited, the Review Team observed that efforts have also been made recently to strengthen research - extension linkages. All 6 countries have reorganized their national extension services, and have adopted the Training and Visit model as part of World Bank-funded extension projects. Research Staff participate in the training of Subject Matter Specialists. 28 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5  Box 1 Mal: The In-Country Advisory Group 'CNRA" Comite national de In recherche agronomique Composition: Chairperson: Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development. One member of each Sub-committee (chairperson), one representative of the donors, CNRA the Ministries of Finance, 8 members Research, Rural Development and Health Sub-Committees Z Scientific Finances Users * 1 chairperson * chairperson * 5 chairpersons of the nominated by the (Ministry of regional Minister of Rural Finance) commissions of Development * 3 representatives of users * Director of the the donors * I representative of CNRST * I representative of the "Chambre * 4 outstanding the Ministries for d'Agriculture" scientists chosen on Planning and Budget * 1 representative personal merits (national and/or expatriate) * 2 representatives of the users subconmmission Procedures Preparation at Zonal Level (5) (regrouping amongst the 16 programs according to the "zonal mandates") 1. Regional sub-committee of users: 75% of its members are farmer representatives 25% are staff members of extension, technical services and research 2. Regional Committee (all programs represented In the regional center) 25% farrner representatives 25% extension staff 25% technical services 25% researchers Revision of the programs by the researchers 3. Technical committee (national level) Concerning all 16 programs, chaired by the Scientific Director of IER 4. Submission to the subcommisslons of the CNRA and decision by CNRA FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5 29  Representatives of the extension system now sit on all Boards and regional planning committees of the NARSs. For example, in Mali, the Ministry of Rural Development has one of the 8 seats on CNRA, and extension officers sit on all zonal committees. In Ghana, the Extension Division of the Ministry of Agriculture is represented on all commodity committees as well as the NARC. In Uganda, not only is extension represented on the committees, but the Extension Division has placed extension liaison officers in each research center. Research - extension linkages have also been strengthened in some countries by giving the extension system responsibility for on-farm tests. This is the case in Tanzania and Uganda. Discussion with extension agents in all countries visited revealed that they were, in general, quite satisfied with the degree of collaboration that now exists with the NARSs. They feel that their views are taken into account, and that they have the opportunity to influence research programs. Lesson 29: The FFA process, with its emphasis on zonal priority-setting, has increased the level of awareness regarding the importance of the improved participation of extension agents and farmers in the setting of research agendas and priorities. Lesson 30: Practical difficulties exist in fully integrating farmers into the research planning process, especially at the national level. An appropriate methodology still needs to be developed and institutionalized in the NARSs. The selection of farmers representatives for User Committees is greatly facilitated where farner organizations exist. The effectiveness of farmer - research linkages could be increased considerably if the long-term partnership arrangements that exist in some zones, e.g. the farmer - researcher groups, could be extended more widely. Lesson 31: Research - extension linkages can be strengthened by taking such steps as making sure that extension agencies are fully represented in research planning comnmittees at the regional and national levels, that they participate in on-farm trials conducted by NARSs or are responsible for such trials, and that NARSs are involved in the training of extension personnel. 5.2 Linkages with NGOs Generally, NGOs are not deeply involved in agricultural research activities. Their principal roles are in emergency relief and rural development activities. They are however, very interested in the activities of the NARSs, as sources of improved technologies and information. As potential users of the output of the NARSs, they also have an interest in ensuring that research programs are properly targeted and address the priorities of the farmers that they deal with. The Review Team found that although linkages between NARSs and NGOs are generally weak, there are collaborative activities in all the countries visited. For example, although there are no formal mechanisms for NARO - NGO collaboration in Uganda, the NGOs are involved in the multiplication of improved seeds, and disease resistant/virus-free cassava planting materials produced by research. CARE Uganda is represented on the NARO 30 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5  Board and has strong linkages with regional research projects in West Nile and South West Uganda. In some countries, NGOs have signed formal contracts with the NARSs for research that directly addresses their needs. For example, CARE Mali has signed formal contracts for research on flood-recession sorghum and rice cultivation with the IER sub-station at Dire, and for research on sorghum, groundnuts and cowpea with the IER station at Cinzana. These activities involve the on-farm testing of varieties and improved cultivation techniques. In Senegal, where ISRA has a long history of collaboration with farmners organizations, the Comite d'appui au developpement des fonts (CADEF) and (Comite national de concertation de.s 'uraux (CNCR) experiences are illustrative. In CADEF, farmers express their research c d~s annually. These are jointly translated into research projects by ISRA scientists and the faL ners, and research contracts signed between the two organizations. ISRA has a general .aLy,eement with CNCR, the apex organization of farmer groups in Senegal. CNCR recently submitted requests to ISRA for recommendations on its specific needs for improved technologies. It has also stated that its participation in ISRA's formal planning and priority- setting meetings is not sufficient to ensure adequate research - farmer linkages. There should be much more farmer participation all along the research planning chain. Research projects developed with CADEF and CNCR are often funded partly by other NGOs and bilateral donors. Lesson 32: Linkages with NGOs and farmers' organizations are a very efficient way to narrow the gap between research and practice. Written agreements which set out the rules for such collaboration, including financial and administrative procedures, help to ensure the smooth operation of such partnerships over time. Lesson 33: NGOs are a prominent feature of the countries visited and significant numbers are involved in natural resource management at the village and farmer levels. They are a useful medium through which farnmer perceptions of research outputs can be obtained and problems identified. The involvement of NGOs in research committees has improved the research planning process by bringing in the view from the field. Lesson 34: The existence of a national NGO coordinating body within a country greatly facilitates the identification of relevant partners for NARSs at the farm level. Lesson 35: Important direct financial contributions from NGOs to the NARSs cannot be expected. However, it is likely that close linkages and sustainable partnerships will enhance the prospects of obtaining continued donor support for the NARSs and ensure the rapid and effective dissemination of proven research findings. 5.3 Linkages with the Private Sector The formulation of FFAs has contributed considerably to an understanding of the importance and potential of the private sector for funding and carrying out research, and supplementing public sector inputs. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5 31  Table 1 shows the existing and potential forms of cooperation between the NARSs and the private sector in the countries visited by the Review Team. The presence of CFMs will undoubtedly enhance the integration of financial contributions emanating from private sector involvement into the global NARS budgets, facilitate decision-making and the allocation of funds according to national and regional priorities. There is potential for increased funding for research on many plantation and cash/export crops through the imposition of levies (see Chapter 4). Lesson 36: The move towards closer involvement of the private sector in research has been beneficial in terms of improving the responsiveness of the NARSs to the needs of their users, and in opening up a potential avenue for increased funding of agricultural activities. 5.4 Linkages with IARCs and Other Advanced Research Organizations All countries visited by the Review Team have long-standing linkages with IARCs and industrial country research organizations. The NARS of Kenya is possibly the most extreme example, since it is in a country which hosts several IARCs, has a continuous history of bilaterally-funded research activities, and is involved in many global and regional research networks. Three distinct types of research linkages can be identified: Collaborative research projects funded by bilateral donors addressing mutually-agreed problems. These may involve the import of technical assistance and expatriate manpower and almost always involve provision of equipment and funding of actual research. Research identified by IARCs in negotiation with the NARSs as relevant to the IARC international mandate, which is funded through the CGIAR system as well as from bilateral sources. Direct project research involving scientific contacts with developed country institutions. Funding may come from a variety of international sources, and may involve work which is not directly applicable to the development process -- so-called basic research. Examples of the first type of cooperative research are the FSR projects run with the assistance of Koninglijk Instituut voor de Tropen/Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) in Tanzania and Mali; the Research & Development (R&D) projects with Natural Resources Institute (NRI) on cashew in Tanzania, cassava and bananas in Uganda; CIRAD's involvement in small ruminants research in Senegal, and inland valley rice in Mali; and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur technische Zusammenarbeit/German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)-supported FSR in Ghana and R&D on coconuts in Tanzania. The degree of integration of these projects within the NARS structure varies from case to case, and depends very much on the way the 32 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5  activities were identified, the particular donor's interest, and the management capacity of the NARS. The Team got the impression that with the recent improvement in the organization and functioning of the NARSs visited, the donors are increasingly willing to integrate the projects into the normal structure of the NARSs. An interesting example of the second type of cooperation is the involvement of IARCs in Ghana. Prominent among these are International Institut of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (cowpea, cassava, yam, plantain, maize), International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMIMYT) (maize), Intemational Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) (animal production) West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) (rice), ISNAR (research management), and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (nitrogen fixation, tsetse control, plant breeding, tissue culture). The degree of integration of IARC research in the NARS program seems to depend on the particular IARC culture. A positive example is the widely-acclaimed WARDA Task Force research activity. The major obstacle to improved collaboration between the NARSs and the IARCs appears to be the top-down way most IARCs set their programs and priorities. The Review Team hopes that on-going discussions concerning the role and functioning of IARCs will lead to a change of mentality and the recognition that the more bottom-up identification of research programs will probably lead to the more practical relevance and transferability of research outcomes. Implementation of the FFAs offer the IARCs the opportunity to more clearly identify common ground for collaborative research with the NARSs. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5 33  Table 1: Research Linkages with the Private Sector Country/ Contract Research Levy System Autonomous Observations Commodity Institute Existing Opportunity Applied Opportunity TANZANIA Tea x x Tea Res. Found. Sugar x Companies Cotton x Cotton Board Coffee x Farmers Assoc. UGANDA Tea x x Tea Board Sugar x x Companies Coffee x Coffee Board KENYA Tea x Farmer Assoc. Sugar ? x Coffee x idem Flowers ? x MALI Cotton x ? x CMDT Sugar x Company Tea x Company Rice x Rice mills SENEGAL Groundnuts x Oil factories Cotton x x SODEFITEX Rice x Rice mills Fisheries x Canning industry GHANA Cocoa and x x CRIG under other tree COCOBOD crops 34 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5  Examples of the third category of cooperative research undertaking include the many CRSP projects, the "Project de Production Secondaire" of AB/DLO in Mali, and the research carried out with Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB)/Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Kenya. Most of the research problems were identified abroad, and little effort has been made to fit the projects within the NARS structure. However, the basic research conducted is often of great importance in understanding local systems. These projects would be of much greater value to the NARSs in terms of scientific linkages, information exchange and training if real efforts are made to better integrate them in the NARSs. Lesson 37: Improvements in research programming, priority-setting and functioning of the NARSs have allowed them to become more effective partners with IARCs and developed country institutions. They are better able to identify priority areas for collaborative research. Lesson 38: Recent improvements in IARC - NARS relationships have still not removed the top-down priority setting approach of some IARCs. Efforts need to continue to put in place formal mechanisms that would allow NARSs to contribute better to research priority-setting in the IARCs. 5.5 Regionalization of Research One of the principles in the FFAs refers to the need for NARSs to devise strategies for regional research that would allow the potential spillover from such research to be exploited. In the countries visited by the Review Team, research managers expressed interest in the development of appropriate regional research programs. However, they generally expressed the need to first develop their own national programs. In East Africa, where agricultural research was conducted on a regional basis until the collapse of the East African Community in 1977, the concept of "centers of excellence" carrying out a regional research agenda, funded by contributions from "beneficiary" countries, and providing output to the whole region, is not very acceptable. In Tanzania, examples were cited of the lack of benefit from regionally-funded research such as the highly successful Kitale maize research program. Preference was expressed for the SACCAR networks, some of which are no longer operational. There is a general consensus that the proliferation of networks in the region has been counterproductive. More than 60 networks currently exist or have existed in East and Central Africa of which 40 are classified as "collaborative" research networks. With the recent creation of ASARECA the NARSs in East/Central Africa now have a mechanism for harmonizing research networks, and developing a regional research program. In West Africa, the situation is still confused. First, SPAAR now has two FFAs, one for the Sahel, and one for the humid coastal countries. Second, there are a number of research coordinating bodies with overlapping country coverage, including Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central Africa (CMAWCA), CORAF, which is now trying to FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5 35  transform itself from a purely Francophone organization to a regional body that would include all West and Central African States; INSAH which depends on CILSS, and is playing a major coordinating role in trying to launch the regional research programs advocated in the Sahel FFA; SAFGRAD which now depends fully on the Organization of African Unity/Scientific, Technical and Research Commission (OAU/STRC) for funding, and has played a coordinating role for networks in semi-arid Africa, including Southern Africa. Implementation of the FFA in the Sahel, and the development of one for the humid and sub-humid countries, have shown that a single regional research program for all of West/Central Africa is desirable. To coordinate such a program, a single coordinating body, like ASARECA in East/Central Africa, is needed. The Sahel FFA makes a strong case for the setting up of "research poles" as a mechanism for the regionalization of research. It calls initially for the setting up of three poles, one for sorghum in Mali, one for small ruminants in Senegal, and the third for natural resource management in Burkina Faso. Attempts to set up the first pole, for sorghum, have run into difficulties as some NARSs have questioned the location of the pole in Mali, and USAID has provided funding through International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) for continuation of the activities of the old SAFGRAD sorghum network. Network members did not agree to the proposals from the IER in Mali to host the secretariat of the network. A major problem with the concept of the poles, as described in the FFA, appears to be that locations for such poles have been decided on before development of the regional research programs -- the poles are supposed to take leadership in development of the programs. The Review Team is of the opinion that the chances for success of the initiative would be greater if regional NARSs collaboratively develop a regional research program, taking into consideration the national Masterplans. After assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each collaborating NARS, research "tasks" could then be assigned. The emergence of "poles" would then be almost a natural development. This would be a more bottom-up process than that implied in the FFA, and would be similar to the WARDA Task Force model. This is apparently the approach ASARECA expects to follow. Lason 39: Implementation of the research pole concept, as a mechanism for enhancing regional research collaboration, has run into difficulties which might be reiated to the top-down approach adopted in designating pole countries before a regional research program has been coliaboratively developed. Leson 40: In order to develop effective regional research programs donors, NARSs, and regional and international research organizations, need to actively collaborate in order to delineate regions and/or subregions to be covered by networks and other collaborative programs, define the respective roles of all participants, and propose the fusion or elimination of networks which have similar functions. 36 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5  5.6 Donor Coordination In most of the countries visited by the Review Team, implementation of SPAAR/FFA activities, has led to considerable improvement in the coordination of donor activities in agricultural research. In Tanzania, donors meet once every 2 months under the chairmanship of the Director-General of DRT. Donors and DRT have expressed satisfaction with these meetings, which have enabled them to improve information flows, reduce duplication of effort, and has provided a forum for discussion of their concerns about the evolution of agricultural research and development in general. In Uganda, regular meetings of donors are held under the chairmanship of the World Bank's Resident Representative. However, only 3 other donors (EU, ODA and USAID) participate in the meetings. In Mali, very strong linkages have been established between the 3 principal donors of IER (the World Bank, USAID and DGIS). All 3 donors are members of the finance sub-committee of the CNRA, while one of them represents all donors on the CNRA Board. They have given their pledge to see that the agreed program of EER is fully funded. In Senegal, consultation between ISRA and donors has occurred for many years. The major bilateral donors (France, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and USAID) meet from time to time with the World Bank and ISRA. They have also participated fully in meetings that have discussed ISRA's re-organization. However, there is evidence that the actual coordination of activities still leaves much to be desired, as is evidenced by the fact that USAID unilaterally financed a study for the financial and administrative reorganization of ISRA, which is now implementing a more centralized accounting system. In Kenya, formal donor coordination is almost absent. KARI, as well as the universities, have collaborative linkages with numerous donor agencies and other developed country institutions (universities, research institutes etc.), who all operate according to different rules. Some of the major bilateral donors (Directorate General for International Cooperation (DGIS), ODA and USAID) have appointed special research -- donor coordinators in order to streamline their relations with KARI. This has been effective in improving technical planning and aiding the development of detailed workplans. However, it has not increased collaboration between donors and there is the risk of reinforcing single-donor action in areas not accorded high priority in the Masterplan. Lesson 41: Implementation of the principles of the FFA in a country enables donors to participate in the Advisory Committee of the NARSs they are supporting, to obtain information directly about all ongoing matters affecting the NARSs, to exchange information with other donors in an efficient way, and to streamline their support in accordance with the needs of the NARSs. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 5 37  6. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Review Team was able to obtain a good overview of documentation and progress in the two pilot countries. However, it was clearly not possible to examine in any great detail actual research activity at research stations or obtain other than a superficial impression of facilities at a limited number of research centers. There is a wealth of documentation in numerous reviews of the problems of the NARSs, their activities and those of IARCs and associated networks. There is also detailed World Bank documentation -- country reports, project preparation documents and now SPAAR/FFA documentation -- which the team believe is unnecessary to include, yet again in this report. Donor agencies have also for some years constantly pored over national research systems in an effort to identify suitable points to inject funding. 6.1 Significant Findings and Comments The SPAARIFFA activities have had a positive and useful effect in bringing new perspectives into the planning procedures of NARSs. Generally speaking, there was little understanding at the outset of the exercise that NARSs had, through a process of organic growth, supported by donor pressures and the need to absorb the outputs of trained scientific personnel, grown to such an extent that they were not supportable from internal funding resources. Furthermore, there was an increased and supply-driven aspect to research plans funded by national treasuries and an erosion of the money available for carrying out effective research as opposed to meeting payrolls. In several of the countries visited, the situation had also to be viewed against periods of political instability, increasing pressure on national budgets and regular and sometimes drastic relocations of research systems managements between ministries. Against this background, the team believes that the Masterplanning exercise has been a definite success. Despite considerable problems and staff dislocation, useful Masterplans now exist in all the countries visited. These recognize the necessity to link research in a prioritized setting to national development goals and hence carry considerable political credibility, which was absent in the past. Plans are also much more realistic in assessments of national capability and frequently seek to further the politically difficult task of reducing staff numbers and rationalizing the number of research sites. There is an increased awareness of the necessity to create zonal and ecoregional plans to better address the problems of end-users, particularly farmers. Annual workplans are already in place at the national level and specific priority areas are often agreed on with donors. In the context of zonal priority-setting, there is a growing consensus that program planning needs to be at zonal level to ensure the ready applicability of results and relevance, and that the process should involve a great deal of staff interaction at regional/zonal level. This is in itself a considerable shift in the culture of research planning which had become increasingly centralized in most NARSs. 38 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 6  The ready acceptance by NARS managements of the need to re-examine at intervals both the priorities set and the strategies in the Masterplans and the need for the establishment of procedures for achieving this goal is a very positive outcome of the FFA process. In the conte.st of the requirement to better relate available staff and financial resources to research priorities, there is much more awareness of the need to institute transparent, effective and monitorable budgeting and accounting systems which allow management to link programs to inputs and thus, in due course, enable cost-benefit and impact assessments to be made. The team is convinced that, certainly in the two pilot countries, these systems are in place at headquarters level and that the necessary software and hardware is becoming available to utilize them. There will clearly be a requirement to extend access to regionallzonal center VvR-js so that financial and personnel information is quickly and accurately available at the p. ogram planning level. Strenuous efforts have been made in the context of reorganization of management to create effective committee structures which ensure the input of perspectives at the national (government policy), research (technical committee) and user (industry, farmer, NGO) levels in the countries visited. This is having a slow but observable effect on the creation of increased support for agricultural research. Hopefully, this will build a consensus on the importance of the activity in meeting the growing challenge of feeding burgeoning populations, creating wealth and ensuring the sustainability of production systems. The team cannot avoid commenting on the complexity and number of "coordinating" organizations involved in agricultural research at the regional and global level, particularly in West Africa. Of considerable interest also is the network of IARC institutes and their associated commodity networks. The CGIAR is moving towards an agenda which increasingly involves ecoregional center approaches to their research agendas. There is therefore a need at this time for NARSs, regional institutions, IARCs and donors to take stock so as to avoid confusion and duplicate efforts, not to mention the diversion of scarce manpower and funding resources. The team believes that NARSs have a major role to play in this exercise and supports their call in "NARS Vision for International Agricultural Research." (December 1994) for full involvement of NARSs in IARC priority-setting and program planning. Currently, the FFAs give some weight to advantages accruing from regional research activity. The creation in West Africa of the sorghum "pole" is a case in point. The team was made aware of the tensions which exist over location, the process of planning such activities and detailed scope of programs. Many national researchers draw attention to the fact that a primary foundation for such activity is the creation of strong and confident NARSs, with active research programs and the ability to identify for themselves and articulate what they require by way of outputs from regional programs. Donors have tended to use IARC regional networks as a conduit for the funding of regional activities. A stage is now being reached where such strategies will lead to difficulties, if clear agreed workplans, responsibilities and output criteria are not mutually agreed on. The definition of the roles of NARSs, IARCs and regional FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 6 39  institute is currently less than transparent and despite regular (and frequently large) meetings, this definition of reporting responsibilities and fund flows is less than clear. An outcome of the SPAAR/FFA activity has been the development of much better information exchange between donors within countries and better understanding and knowledge of bilaterally funded research activity. In most countries, a very positive feature has also been the setting-up of a NARS/Donor forum chaired by the senior national research manager. Several instances of donor representation on national research bodies by an agreed single donor country were found, while broader donor/NARS committees at regular venues with agreed agendas and minutes are an established norm. There is an increased awareness and active study of the place of the private sector in natural resource planning and funding. Innovative methods of involving the private sector are being tried and there is a very positive appreciation of the usefulness of using private sector funding, however raised, to allow public funds to be applied to research areas which are unlikely to attract alternative funding. There is a realization of the benefits likely to accrue from contractual arrangements between the private sector and NARSs for producing research results and an apparent preparedness on the part of private industry to pay for such arrangements. Problems still remain with regard to the actual techniques and methodology for obtaining farmer inputs into the identification of appropriate research for NARSs and the involvement of farmers in carrying out and feeding back information into the planning process. Many problems stem from the logistics of the situations, but there are also very real issues which include the identification of relevant farmer constituencies, literacy levels and farmers' ability to articulate problems in a comprehensive and comprehensible fashion. There appears to be an opportunity for the better articulation of farmer needs through local farmers' organizations, "grassroots" NGOs and local farmers groups. However, there are dangers of over-elaborate and bureaucratic procedures becoming accepted. The frequency and subsequent updating of such inputs is also open to debate as once the priorities are identified, time must be allowed for the solution of problems by research. Donors still remain reluctant to relinquish control over "their" funds, despite the clear evidence that much-improved transparency of accounting has now been established in NARSs. The team saw little evidence that donors are prepared to allow funds to flow to CFMs. Some NARSs have been innovative in the manipulation of donor funding within an ARF, which fits fully into the identified research priorities in the national strategy. There is evidence that donor representatives are more prepared to accept that there are grounds for the release of funds for operational expenses and overheads and furthermore accept that the rigid interpretation of rules on operational expenses need some relaxation for a bridging period while the national strategies become established. 40 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 6  In the view of the team, a critical stage has now been reached in the long sought-after goal of strengthening NARSs which has involved a very large investment in terms of time on the part of the NARS scientists and managers, the intellectual capital of both donors and NARSs and, not least, funding over a period in excess of 10 years. The processes of organization, the mechanisms of formulating strategies, techniques of priority-setting and overview and monitoring are now in place in most of the countries visited. A critical problem remains the mobilization of funds to create improved conditions of service for researchers and to actually carry out the work now identified in the annual workplans. There is a vital need at this time to actually operate the system and allow NARS scientists to initiate activities and to produce results, which can be fed into appropriate dissemination channels. However, there is already some indication that pressure is now building to embark on yet more process planning, evaluation, impact assessment and in-depth monitoring before information has begun to be generated. A step of faith is now required if enthusiasm for the NARS strengthening process is to be retained. 6.2 Recommendations 6.2.1 The Review Team commends the process of priority-setting as outlined in the FFAs as a basis for strengthening NARSs. The process has, in the countries visited by the team, had a significant role in ensuring a shared vision of research action required by the different components of the NARSs -- public, private and academic. This has been, and is, instrumental in forging the necessary 'esprit de corps' which is important in obtaining improvement in research productivity. These processes should be applied more widely through SPAAR in countries participating in the FFAs. 6.2.2 The creation of NARS/Donor "in country" fora to discuss priorities emerging under the Masterplan exercise has been extremely valuable. These consultations have been important in sharing perceptions and in exchanging information between stakeholders -- donor/donor, NARS/NARS and NARS/Donor. The extension of the system which has in some countries enabled donor representatives, or a single donor representing other interested donors, to participate in important national research policy meetings, has much to commend it. The alternative mechanism of individual donors appointing coordinators/coordinating groups for specific agreed national priority research areas has proved effective for improving technical planning and aiding the development of detailed workplans. However, this can run the risk of reinforcing single donor action in areas not rated high priority in Masterplans and thus fail to encourage a broad systems vision, which is emerging in the NARSs. If this mechanism is used, steps need to be taken to ensure the broad coordination of such research activities within the framework of Masterplans. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 6 41  6.2.3 The team commends the progress made and concepts included in the FFAs, particularly the key and demonstrable contribution of NARSs. The FFAs articulate and set down several important and basic elements of NARS strengthening. They also provide a framework for the total overview of both NARS and donor effort for achieving mutually agreed objectives in national programs of agricultural research. SPAAR should therefore now direct its efforts to ensuring that agreed priority programs are funded and implemented. 6.2.4 The improvement of transparency in accounting, linking of fund allocation to specific research action and improvements in organization and management systems in NARSs, is clearly a major outcome of the implementation of FFA principles in the countries visited. All NARSs visited suffer from a chronic shortage of operational funding which makes it unrealistic to expect improved productivity unless money can be deployed effectively to the identified priority research in a timely and sustained manner. As requested by donors, priority activities have been identified by essentially "bottom-up" approaches and accepted by both governments and interested donors. The full implementation of agreed programs is now essential and requires the full backing of SPAAR members. 6.2.5 In the pilot countries, it is clear that a significant outlay was required on both hardware (facilities, transport and computers) and software to attain improved management and to facilitate the introduction of priority-setting mechanisms and organizational change. A proper balance needs to be maintained between the two, particularly at the time of initiation of FFAs in additional target countries. There is a tendency to underplay the importance of the provision of hardware in gaining acceptance for initiating the adoption of change in the FFAs. 6.2.6 Progress on improvement of conditions of service and salaries in NARSs remains minimal and continues to detract from their effectiveness. While it is conceded that this is only one of several shortfalls impeding research productivity and output, it remains a major stumbling block and must be urgently addressed by both national govemments and donors. It is unlikely that even in the countries visited, which generally have Masterplans with clearly identified priorities and adequate Research Action Plans, progress will be other than very slow in a situation where significant amounts of researcher's time has to be devoted to family subsistence. The issue is complex and frequently involves policy issues outside the immediate research field. The innovative process being tried with regard to staff conditions of service by some of the countries visited needs to be assessed and supported, and the concepts of private sector involvement and contract research further explored. 6.2.7 Under the FFA guidelines, SPAAR members have agreed in principle that regional research has considerable potential in the overall strengthening of NARSs. SPAAR members should support efforts by the Secretariat to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure that such research collaboration is driven by NARS priorities. There is a requirement to develop guidelines to effectively integrate the perspectives of NARSs, regional organizations, IARCs, donors and other interested institutions. Such guidelines would address the identification of regional research coordination mechanisms and the definition of the tasks of various partners. These tasks should be determined taking into account the comparative advantages/weaknesses 42 FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 6  of potential focal centers (poles) in addition to setting priorities for action and subsequent implementation. Successful implementation of these focal programs is dependent on the transparency of accounting and acceptable management capability. FFA Lessons Learnt - Chapter 6 43  APPENDIX 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE Review of Lessons Learntfrom FFA Implementation in Mali and Tanzania Specific Objectives of the Review Objective I Drawing on the reports of the regional task forces that prepared the FFAs, the progress reports of the countries involved in this Review, as well as interviews with relevant national, regional and donor representatives during field visits, the Review Team should assess: the success of each country in internalizing and utilizing the FFA principles to strengthen its NARS; and whether the experience of the countries involved in this Review can be usefully extended to, or adapted by, other countries. Answers to the following key questions, which are by no means exhaustive, can serve as indicators of progress made. A Research Masterolan or Stratejv Research Strategy: A national Research Strategy with agreed priority research programs that are supported by a CFM is the cornerstone for building a strong and sustainable research system. Give a detailed analysis of the procedure followed in the development of the Research Strategy, including its strengths and weaknesses, the stakeholders involved and an assessment of whether the priority-setting process has been institutionalized in the NARSs. Do donors and other stakeholders support the priority programs identified in the Strategy and, if so, has this support been translated into practice? Document any significant changes in the practice of donors and other stakeholders since the implementation of the Research Strategy. Are the priorities established in the Strategy still valid? Are there plans to revisit these priorities? Will all stakeholders be involved in the priority updating process? How frequently should the priorities be revisited? Research Action Plans: Have clear Action Plans on the agreed priority research programs been developed? How were the Action Plans prepared and by whom? To what extent were farmers involved in the preparation of these Plans? Is the allocation of resources (human and financial) by management based on the Research Action Plans? Financin, Mechanism for Aricultural Research Assess the overall (external and domestic) funding situation for agricultural research in terms of its adequacy, timeliness and sustainability. Some donor organizations such as the World Bank are prepared to provide non-incremental recurrent research costs for the project that they are funding. Have these donors been approached to assist government with its recurrent budget, both with the local direct recurrent operating costs of research programs and the indirect overhead costs of maintaining the infrastructure and 44 FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix  management of the research system? Is the rationale for the CFM clearly understood and acceptable to government? Has a prototype funding mechanism, e.g., an ARF, been established to bring about greater coherence in funding the priority research programs and to promote public-private sector collaboration and to contract research to universities? Has an accounting software been installed to ensure accountability and transparency in financial operations? If yes, is the software being utilized to demonstrate to donors the feasibility of pooling donor efforts and funding in a transparent manner? Institutional and Manazement Capacitv Buildinf Assess the existing institutional and management capacity of the research system, in terms of policy- and decision-making, programming, monitoring and evaluation. Institutional capacity: To what extent have changes been made to rationalize public sector research infrastructure and to improve the work environment of scientists in the public sector? Were the changes made as a result of FFA implementation? What efforts have been made to better utilize available resources through collaborating with private sector research institutions, universities and NGOs, and to draw on their expertise and comparative advantage? Management capacity: Are research management and team leaders permitted to make critical decisions on the research budget and research personnel, and, if so, are they held accountable for their decisions? Country Advisory Group Assess government support for agricultural research. Is there an apex body such as an Agricultural Research Council in the country? If yes, is it active? Is there a mechanism for interaction and collaboration between NARS scientists in the public sector and their counterparts in the private sector, academic community, IARCs, donor organizations and NGOs? Has a support or Advisory Group been established? If so, do donor representatives subscribe to the idea of putting the Director of Research in the driver's seat? Do they attend Advisory Group meetings on a regular basis to discuss with NARS representatives the progress made or problems faced with the implementation of the priority research programs? Research-Extension-Farmer Linkaies Assess the status of research-extension-farmer linkages in the country. Do representatives of the extension service and farmers participate in the annual research planning process? Do research scientists make it a practice to visit farmers' fields regularly to determine the need for specific technologies? Are the technical problems faced by farmers being addressed by the research programs? FFA Lessons Leamt - Appendix 45  Rerionalization of Research Are regional research programs, where they exist, included in the national Research Strategy? To what extent is there a feeling of ownership for regional programs in general, and for those hosted by the country in particular? How much support (both financial and technical) does the host country receive from hosting regional programs? How much support does it provide to the regional programs hosted by other countries in the region? Objective II Assess the main impacts or achievements (shortcomings) of the implementation process and identify the factors contributing to the successful (unsuccessful) outcomes. Objective III Indicate the areas where improvements or changes can be usefully made to the FFA implementation process, and assess the feasibility and desirability of replicating it in other countries. 46 FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix  APPENDIX 2. ITINERARY OF REVIEW TEAM (1994-95) November 26 - December 3: Visit to Tanzania December 4 - 7: Visit to Uganda December 8 - 11: Visit to Kenya January 15 - 21: Visit to Mali January 22 - 25: Visit to Senegal January 26 - 29: Visit to Ghana January 31 - February 18: SPAAR headquarters FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix 47  APPENDIX 3. PERSONS MET 1. TANZANIA DRT, Mfnistry of Agriculture Dr. Francis M. Shao, Commissioner Dr. G.M. Mitawa, Assistant Commissioner, Crops Research Mr. D.B. Mpiri, Assistant Commissioner, Livestock Research Mr. J.J. Mende, Project Training Officer-NALRP, Chief Admin. Officer-ARF Mr. George Ndamagi, Project Accountant-NALRP Dr. G. Sempeho, Head Planning and Evaluation Unit, Project Manager-NALRP Mr. T.N. Kirway, Assistant Commissioner, Farming Systems Research Mrs. Zinab Sembgalawe, Farming Systems Research Program Mr. Dennis Wood, Senior Officer-ISNAR, Advisor on Research Management and Planning. World Bank Mr. Motoo Konishi, Resident Representative Mr. Donald Sungusia, Agricultural Services Specialist. British High Commission Mr. Robin Burnhams, Second Secretary-Aid. The Netherlands Mrs. Franka G. Struys, Third Secretary, Royal Netherlands Embassy Dr. Amoud Budelman, KIT, Chief Technical Advisor, FSR Project, Lake Zone Dr. A. Straud, KIT, Technical Advisor, FSR Coordinating Unit, DRT. GTZ, Germany Dr. Lothar Diehl, Team Leader, Cashew and Coconut Tree Crops Project. University of Dar es Salaam Prof Idris S. Kikula, Director, Institute of Resource Assessment Dr. Shishira, Natural Resources Specialist. 48 FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix  Sokoine University of Agriculture Dr. Ludovic D.B. Kinabo, Director, Research and Postgraduate Studies. 2. UGANDA NARO Prof. Joseph Mukiibi, Director General, Chairman ASARECA. National Councilfor Science and Technology Dr. Z.M. Nyiira, Executive Secretary Dr J.F. Kakule, Deputy Executive Secretary. Makerere University Prof. N. Situma, Dean, Faculty of Vet. Medicine Dr. E.N. Sabiiti, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry. ASARECA Prof. John Mugerwa, Acting Executive Secretary. EU Mr. P. Mikos, Counsellor. World Bank Mr. Brian Falconer, Resident Representative. USAID Dr. Gary L. Bayer, Chief Agriculture and Natural Resources Officer. Ministry ofAgriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Mr. John Baptiste Mubiru, Director of Agricultural Extension. CARE International Mr. Stanley Dunn, Country Director. FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix 49  3. KENYA World Bank Mr. Jacob Kampen, Senior Agriculturist. USAID Dr. Maria Mullei, Project Specialist Dr. Dennis B. McCarthy, Agriculture Development Officer. UK Mr. James Harvey, Senior Natural Resources Advisor, ODA Eastern Africa. KARI Dr. J. Damian Wachira, Deputy Director, Livestock Research Mr. James Matata, Assistant Director, Regional Research Program, Secretary, Agricultural Research Fund. The Netherlands Dr. M. Kooyman, Research Coordinator, KIT/KARI Dr. L. Sprey, Research Coordinator, KIT/KARI. 4. MALI IER Dr. Oumar Niangado, Director General Mr. Sidibe Diakaridia, Director, Finance Dr. Binoteme, Scientific Director Dr. Yacouba 0. Doumbia, Director, Regional Research Center, Sotuba Mr. Mamadou D. Coulibaly, Chief, Cattle Research, Sotuba Mr. Racine Ly, Station Manager, Sotuba. CNRA Dr. Moussa Traore, President Dr. Mamadou Goita, Executive Secretary. 50 FFA Lessons Leamt - Appendix  CMDT Mr. Jean Baptiste Diabate, Director, Rural Developmemt Mr. Abdoulaye Dolo, Deputy Director, Development-Research Liaison. Agriculture Department Mr. Bouare Dasse, Deputy Director. The Netherlands Mr. Bink J.T. Van Walsem, First Secretary, Rural Development, Royal Netherlands Embassy. CARE - Mali Mr. Aly Djiga, Coordinator, Agriculture and Natural Resources Program/Development of Small Scale Economic Activities. USAID-Mali Mr. John Mullenax, Chief, Agriculture Development Office. INSAH Mr. M.S. Sompo-Ceesay, Director General. ICRISAT Dr. D.S. Murty, Sorghum Breeder, Western and Central Africa Regional Program Dr. J. Chantereau, Sorghum Breeder, CIRAD/West and Central Africa Regional Program Dr. Alain Ratnadass, Sorghum Breeder, CIRADlWest and Central Africa Regional Program Dr. Jacques Gigou, Agronomist, CIRAD/West and Central Africa Regional Program. 5. SENEGAL ISRA Dr. El Hadji Gueye, President, Board of Directors Mr. Moussa Fall, President Scientific and Technical Committee Dr. Mohamadou El Habib Ly, Director General. FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix 51  Afinistry of Energy, Mines and Industy Mr. Alhassane Daly Ndiaye, Minister Mr. Abdoul Rahman Seke, Director of Industries. National Extension Program Mr. Mamadou Sonko, Director. Ministry of Agrwculare Mr. Baba Dioum, Director, Agriculture Policy Unit/General Coordinator, CWCAMA Mr. Bara Mbengue, Cabinet Director. World Bank Mr. David Jones, Acting Chief of Mission. CORMF Dr. Ndiaga Mbaye, Executive Secretary. FAC Mr. M.T. Mukendi, Representative Mr. Andre Matton, Deputy Representative Ms. Ilonka Meeng, Forestry Program. TECHNOPOLE Mr. Ibrahim Basse, Chief of Mission. Ministry of Econonics, Finance and Planning Mr. Mamadou W. Diallo, Director, Debt and Investment Department. IDRC Dr. Gerald R Bourrier, Regional Director Dr. Ola Smith, Senior Program Officer. French Cooperation Afission Mr. Jean Jacques Courtant. 52 FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix  USAID Mr. Mawa Diop, Task Officer, National Resources Based Research Project. SONA GRAINE Mr. Bouna Coly, Director General. CNCR Mr. Mordit Bah, Consultant. Ernst and Young Mr. Iba Basse, Mission Director. 6. GHANA CSIR Prof W. S. Alhassan, Director General Prof J.C. Norman, Deputy Director General, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research. Ministry ofAgriculture Dr. Samuel Daarpah, Chief Director Dr. Francis Ofori, Director, Crop Science Department. FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix 53  APPENDIX 4. PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED 1. SPAAR (general) SPAAR. 1994. Report of the External Program and Management Review (EPMR) of the Special Program for African Agricultural Research. SPAAR Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, D.C. SPAAR. 1995. Annual Report 1994. SPAAR Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, D.C. SPAAR. 1994. National Agricultural Research Systems' Vision of International Agricultural Research, The Sub-Saharan African Perspective. SPAAR Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, D.C. 2. SOUTHERNAFRICA (general) Spurling, A. et al. 1992. Agricultural Research in Southern Africa. A Framework for Action. Discussion Paper No. 184. World Bank, Washington, D.C. 3. EASTAFRICA (general) "Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa -- Work Program Proposal 1994-1996" (in draft). Weijenberg, J., et al. 1994. "Strengthening National Agricultural Systems in Eastern and Central Africa" (in draft). World Bank, Washington, D.C. 4. TANZANL4 Kassam, A.H. 1990. Tanzania: National Agricultural Research Master Plan. Working Paper 16, Zonation of Agricultural Research in Tanzania. NARM Task Force. DRT. 1990. Project for Strengthening the National Development and Coordination of Farming Systems Research in Tanzania 72/89/014. Ministry of Agriculture. 1992. "A National Farming Systems Research Strategy for Tanzania -- Report of a Task Force." Mimeo. ODA. 1994. "ODA Renewable Natural Resources Strategy for Tanzania." ODA Development Division in Eastern Africa. Stroud, A., and Z. Semgalawe. 1994. "Year End Report, 1993, National Famiing Systems Research Project." DRT. Mimeo. 54 FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix  ----------- 1994. "Year Plan 1994, National Farming Systems Research Project." DRT. Mimeo. World Bank. 1988. Tanzania Agricultural and Livestock Research Project, Staff Appraisal Report. Washington, D.C. DRT/ISNAR. 1991. Tanzania: National Agricultural and Livestock Research Masterplan. 6 Vols. The Hague. DRT. 1994. "Progress in the Implementation of the FFA in Tanzania.", Mimeo. November. -------. 1994. "Agricultural Research Fund Constitution." Mimeo. September. Sempeho, G. 1994. "Experience in the Preparation of the Tanzanian National Agricultural and Livestock Research Masterplan." Mimeo. November. 5. UGANDA UNCST. 1994. AnnualReport1993. Ministry of Agriculture. 1994. "Agricultural Extension Project, Progress Report, January - June 1994." Mimeo. IJNCST. 1991. Uganda Working Group 9a. Agricultural Policy Committee. "National Agricultural Research Strategy and Plan." Vols I & II - Organisation and Management; Priorities and Programs. World Bank. 1992. Uganda Agricultural Research and Training Project, Staff Appraisal Report. Agriculture and Environment Operations Division, Eastern Africa Department, Africa Region. Washington, D.C. 6. KENYA KARI/ MIAC/ USAID. 1994. NARP Phase II Year 3 Workplan 1/7/94 - 30/6/95. KARI 1991. Kenya 'sAgricultural Research Priorities to the Year 2000. Nairobi ----------. 1991. Agricultural Research Fund. Nairobi. ISNAR. 1990. Kenya: National Agricultural Research Project, Mid-term Review. The Hague. FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix 55  IFAR. 1994. Agriculture in Kenya. "The Role of International Agricultural Research Centres." Country Report #5. International Fund for Agricultural Research. Washington, D.C. KIT/KARI. 1994. Revised Plan of Operations for the Netherlands Support to the National Agricultural Research Project Phase II, 1/07/94 - 1/07/1995. KARI. Nairobi. World Bank. 1987. Kenya National Agricultural Research Project, Staff Appraisal Report. Africa Region. Country Department II, Agriculture Operations. Washington, D.C. -----------. 1994. Second National Extension Project (NEP II), Mid - Term Review. 7. WEST and CENTRAL AFRICA (general) CMAAOC. 1994. Aide - Memoire, Conference des Ministres d'Agriculture de l'Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre (CMAAOC), D. Objectifs Immediats Produits et Activites. Mimeo. Dakar, Senegal. CORAF/SPAAR/USAID. 1994. Regionalization of Research in West and Central Africa, A Synthesis of Workshop Findings and Recommendations, Banjul, March 14-16. World Bank/ ARTS. Washington, D.C. CORAF. 1993. Actes de la VI Reunion Pleniere de la CORAF, Ouagadougou, 15-20 Mars. CORAF. Dakar. ----------. 1994. Actes de la VII Reunion Pleniere de la CORAF, Banjul, 17-19 Mars. CORAF. Dakar. IER. 1993. LeP6ledeRechercheSorgho. Mimeo. Bamako. -----------. 1994. P6le de Recherche sur le Sorgho en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre, Avant-Projet Statut. Mimeo. Bamako. ISNARISPAAR 1993. Reunion de Directeurs SNRA - Pays Membres du CILSS sur le Document Pole Sorgo. Mimeo. ROCARS/ WCASRN. 1994. Seminaire - Atelier sur la Relance des Activites de Recherche sur le Sorgho en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre IER/ ICRISAT/ INSAH. -----------. 1994. Quarterly Technical Report. ICRISAT/ WASIP. Bamako. 56 FFA Lessons Leamt - Appendix  SPAAR/CMAWCA. 1994. "Coalition for Change: A Framework for Action For Improving Technology Development and Transfer in the Humid and Sub-Humid Zones of West and Central Africa." SPAAR Secretariat. World Bank, Washington, D.C. (5th draft). SPAAR, 1992. "Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Revitalizing African Agricultural Research An Initiative for Humid and Sub-Humid Zones of Western and Central Africa." Weijenberg, J., et al. 1993. Revitalizing Agricultural Research in the Sahel, A Proposed Framework for Action. Discussion Paper No. 211. World Bank, Washington, D.C. 8. MA4LI IER. 1994. Accord d'Etablissement de l'Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER). Min. du Dev. Rural et de l'Environnement. Mimeo. Bamako. ----------. 1994. Manuel d'Organisation de l'Institut d'Economie Rurale. Min du Dev. Rural et de l'Environnement. Mimeo. Bamako. ---------- 1994. Termes de Reference, Evaluation Externe des Programme de Recherche Min. du Dev. Rural et de l'Environnement. Mimeo. Bamako. ----------. 1994. Plan dAction 1994-2000. IER, Min. de Dev. Rural et de I' Environnement. Bamako. Programmes: Arachide, Bovins, Coton, Economie des Filieres, Fruits et Legumes, Mais, Mil, Niebe, Petits Ruminants, Ressources Forestieres, Resources Malientiques, Riz de Bas-fond, Riz Irrigue, Sorgho, Systemes de Production et Gestion des Ressources Naturelles. Mimeo. Bamako. ----------. 1994. Contrat de Recherche (Modele). Mimeo. Bamako. ----------. 1994. Contrat de Performance (Modele). Mimeo. Bamako. ----------. 1994. Comite National de la Recherche Agronomique, Statut, Reglement Interieur. Mimeo. Bamako. ----------. 1994. Rapport Final Mise en Place de la Commission Regionale des Utilisateurs des Resultats de la Recherche du Centre Regional de Recherche Agronomique de Sotuba. Min. du Dev. Rural et de L'Environnement. Mimeo. Bamako. World Bank. 1993. Rapport d'evaluation Mali, Project National de Recherche Agricole. Div. Operations Agricoles, Dept Sahel/ Region Afrique. Washington, D.C. FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix 57  9. SENEGAL ISRA. 1988. Strat*gie et Programmation des Recherches 1989-1993, Presentation et Synth*se. Mimeo. Dakar. ----------. 1993. Rapport Annuel 1992. ISRA-UNIVAL. Dakar. World Bank. 1981. Senegal Agricultural Research Project, Staff Appraisal Report. West Africa Region. Third Agriculture Division. Washington, D.C. ----------. 1990. Senegal Agricultural Research Project, Staff Appraisal Report. Agriculture Division, Sahelian Department, Africa Region. Washington, D.C. 10. GHANA CSIR. 1994. Ghana National Agricultural Research Strategic Plan. Vols. I and II. World Bank. 1991. Republic of Ghana National Agricultural Research Project. Staff Appraisal Report. West Africa Department, Agriculture Operations Division. Washington, D.C. 11. MISCELLANEOUS Kampen, J. 1994. "Agricultural Research in the AF2 Countries." Draft. World Bank. Nairobi. Lattre-Gasquet, M., de and Merlet, J.F. 1994. Conceptualization of African Research Networks Based on Examples in Sub-Saharan Africa. CIRAD. Paris. 58 FFA Lessons Learnt - Appendix