Report of the second external programme and management review of the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM)

ICLARM is now at a key point in its evolution. The problems of the past are past; a strongadministration and corporate services are in place; a solid, cohesive research and outreach programhas evolved that addresses the priority areas of the CGIAR in living aquatic resources management(LARM) and has had noticable impact on management practice and policy; close linkages exist withkey partners in ICLARM’s mandate regions, and a solid field program is developing in Africa, Thecenter is about to make a decision on a move to a new headquarters site with appropriate researchfacilities (which have been sorely missing in the present overcrowded urban site). In sum, the Panelis encouraged by where ICLARM is today and particularly how well it has handled its evolution overthe past years.The Center represents an excellent, solid investment for its donors; and the recognition of theimportance of the Center’s work is reflected in the steady growth in support, from some $8 millionin 1995, at the time of the Mid term Review, to some $12 million today. Yet, significantly, ICLARMstill remains one of the smallest CGIAR centers - less than one third the size of the largest ones.Also significant from the Panel’s perspective is the admirable, structured way in which ICLARM hasaccommodated and adjusted to its growth. The Panel believes that ICLARM can deal effectivelywith substantial additional growth; and that such expansion in research would be well justified interms of the relative importance of aquatic products in food security and in poverty alleviation formany millions of poor living on and near coastal areas of the developing world. Further, ICLARMcould make important additional contributions to marine area protection and management and to theoverall international processes of conservation initiated under the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.To understand the Panel’s positive assessment of ICLARM today, one has to go back someyears and look at (a) its tremendous progress between the the first EPMR in 1992 and the Mid TermReview (MTR) in 1995, and (b) its additional progress since then and up to the present EPMR. Theresult of this perspective review of the dynamics of ICLARM results in the Panel’s positiveconclusion on how far the center has come over the past five years. The MTR report concluded thatthe Center had responded well to the recommendations of the first EPMR in 1992. The presentEPMR Panel concludes that ICLARM has responded well to the recommendations made by theMTR, and,

---

• View source