In this Chapter the Panel assesses the quality of the science and the partnerships IRRI has with ARIs, NARS and other stakeholders, that are all needed to be effective.
In any modern organization, strategic planning, priority setting and resource allocation require an analysis of the target area in which the organization expects to have impact, in order to define where its interventions will have the greatest pay-off for investment. The Panel considers that IRRI has the capacity to undertake these analyses systematically for all operational planning through the Social Sciences Division, as proposed in Chapter 5. Similarly, IRRI’s impact assessment studies help the on-going adjustment of research activities to achieve maximum benefit. To assure that research is conducted in the most efficient way and is of high quality, the Centre has various mechanisms that it can use systematically at scientist, Project and Division level. These activities, together with the documentation IRRI maintains on publications and other research outputs, provide the basis for a comprehensive evaluation of quality of the work undertaken in the Centre.
As a mission oriented organization, IRRI constantly checks the relevance of its work against the context of the world in which it operates. As noted in Chapter 1, this world is changing fast. The pace of science and technology has accelerated, and the growth and complexity of the economies of the rice producing countries in Asia have increased in the past five years. The demands on IRRI could easily lead to it becoming all things to all people and losing focus. These changes also challenge IRRI’s identity and function, with the need for regular review and recurrent articulation. IRRI is helped in this process through its close operating partnerships with a wide range of organizations, both among rice producing countries and at the international level. These relationships are crucial to the successful and effective delivery of its mission.
In the Programme Chapters we have assessed the relevance of the research activities and the quality of the Project outputs. In this Chapter we discuss scientific standards of research staff and the processes in place for enhancing quality. We also discuss IRRI’s linkages to the outside world that are needed for producing relevant research outputs.
The Panel considered the various mechanisms in place for monitoring, maintaining and encouraging science of high quality and productivity at the level of individual scientists and Project operations. At IRRI, processes and practices that can be considered to contribute to quality include the regular research group meetings, Annual Programme Review, peer review of activities and areas of research commissioned by IRRI or external bodies, staff assessment, participation in competitive grants schemes, ex ante analyses of planned activities, making resources available to pilot research activities through the innovation fund, and other studies related to quality. Assessing the quality of science is very complex and needs to be done through meaningful comparison with peer organizations.
The Panel asked IRRI to provide the ‘Measures of Esteem’ for the period 1998-2003 of internationally recruited staff (IRS), including postdoctoral fellows (PDF) and international research fellows (IRF). The measures included a selected set of indicators reflecting scientific recognition, productivity and linkages, such as publications of different kind, awards, board memberships and invited lectures. These items are ones where external peer review is involved. The Panel also looked at the academic stewardship among IRRI professionals.
In analysing the indicators, the Panel considered only internationally recruited professionals who allocate >10% of their time to research programmes. Productivity in terms of publications varied considerably among professional staff, as can be seen in Figure 6.1, which summarizes the data from those six years. The average rate across the whole of the Institute for the research scientists is two peer reviewed journal papers per year, which would be considered of intermediate to good performance in national quality laboratories in the US, Europe and the like, where there are no other exceptional demands made on research scientists. However, for IRRI, an international Institute that has to deliver many things other than such publications, this production rate is very good. Nevertheless, the Panel suggests IRRI should explore what it expects individual professional staff to publish in such journals to sustain career development, to disseminate knowledge and to help advertise the standing of the Centre to attract top quality staff and postdoctoral fellows.
There are 20% of staff members who are not publishing or rarely publishing in international journals. These staff members are mainly post doctoral fellows at the beginning of their career, breeders who focus on the production of new varieties, or outreach staff who focus on applied country projects. Internal peer review via manuscript preparation helps to sustain standards and relevance. Publishing also enhances the value of any accomplishments as it gives others the chance to benefit from it.
IRRI staff have a long standing tradition of publishing high quality books, either internally or in collaboration with scientific publishing houses on specific topics or conferences. These books are professionally edited to a very high standard in-house, and are peer reviewed. They are of particular value as the spread of such books, free to developing countries, has been the major source of up-to-date information as many rice scientists in the NARS cannot access expensive international journals. Over the period reviewed, 82% of professional staff published in different kinds of peer reviewed books at a rate half as high as for journals. This is a good output. The Panel commends the continued output of high quality monographs and books.
IRRI IRS have close linkages to the academic world, which is reflected in the high proportion of staff, some 75%, that supervise students, including MSc, PhD, and postdoctoral fellows. IRRI has a long-standing tradition that its international scientists are invited as guest lecturers and professors at UPLB. Many Asian students also outside the Philippines conduct a PhD study at IRRI and obtain their degree from UPLB, which is well respected. IRRI has contributed significantly to the training of Asian rice scientists through degree programmes. This form of training is especially valuable although often time consuming. Several senior IRS staff members have guest professorships at other Asian, European or American universities.
IRRI IRS also have a high visibility in the relevant scientific world, judging by the number of invitations to deliver lectures and seminars, with 80% of professionals involved. Also, some 40% of IRS have been on the editorial board of peer-reviewed journals, some half of them for more than one journal. Several scientists have received awards and other forms of recognition.
Figure 6.1 - Frequency Distribution of Peer-reviewed Publishing Rate 1998-2003[42]
At IRRI, donor contacts are centrally coordinated but participation in writing proposals for project funding is high. More than half of the IRRI IRS have been main authors in successful grant proposals.
An IRS classification system with weighted impact factors has recently been set up and is being implemented. The system involves a performance appraisal, in which four components are distinguished: (1) impact in product development; (2) impact at the NARS level; (3) impact in science; and (4) impact on organizations.
The weighting factor in each case is determined in a meeting between staff member and supervisor. The main purpose of the assessment is to ensure that the classification decisions are based on an objective, consistent, and transparent appraisal in areas of importance for the Centre. It takes into consideration the unique features of each staff member’s duties and contribution. The Panel commends IRRI for implementing this highly sophisticated system.
The recruitment process for international staff is a thorough process. A selection committee is installed by the DG and positions are internationally advertised. Candidates who are selected by the selection committee visit IRRI and discuss scientific and impact issues with teams of scientists during an intensive two-day process. In addition they are asked to give a seminar at IRRI. To date, the quality of candidates is high. IRRI has not had difficulties in filling IRS positions with highly qualified candidates. In 19 out of 20 recent recruitments, IRRI has been able to recruit its first choice candidate. This high success rate reflects the organization’s ability to attract good professionals. The Panel confirms, in general, that high quality scientists have been recruited, which reflects the good reputation of science and scientists at IRRI and perceptions of career development.
The quality of IRRI staff is also demonstrated by the fact that many professionals have moved on from IRRI to significant positions in leading science organizations in later life. At the moment, the staff structure in terms of seniority in career and time served at IRRI is well balanced. The Centre must ensure that an optimal balance in each operational unit is maintained to maintain institutional memory and continuity in research.
The Annual Programme Review meeting gives all research staff the opportunity to review the research Programmes of the Centre. The staff give presentations on projects, strategy and future plans. In the 2003 APM, detailed notes were collated by an external observer to facilitate the discussion and follow-up. At the Centre level, this meeting seems to provide a good and essential forum for exchange of ideas and assessment of general quality of results and plans. What is missing in this planning process is how the results of these sessions are translated by senior management into priorities for the allocation of resources to these projects. Without participation in this key part of the process, staff lack ownership of the results.
IRRI has commissioned only two CCERs in the review period, with a third currently being conducted but not yet completed. In addition, several projects have been externally reviewed at the initiative of donors or TAC. The Board appears not to have used the CCERs specifically for quality review purposes but rather to guide strategic planning. However, the Panel found that the two CCERs that were conducted were useful and provided credible evidence on quality and productivity, and policy for future development. The Panel suggests that IRRI conduct more CCERs in their main areas of work to strengthen monitoring of quality, strategic planning and decision making. Some Programmes at IRRI have been reviewed following external initiative such as the TAC commissioned systemwide review on plant breeding methodologies.
IRRI does not systematically apply formal ex ante peer review processes to Project initiatives. However, social scientists have conducted ex ante impact studies on some Projects prior to implementation. In the Challenge Programme process, a large part of the funds is provided through competitive grant procedures where external review processes are applied. In the Water and Food CP, eight of the total of 24, the highest ranking proposals were initiatives led by IRRI, with two of these currently funded. In the other ongoing CPs, such competitive grants systems will be implemented in the following year. This is expected to help to keep the science quality high.
At IRRI, Units and Divisions are responsible for quality assurance. The Division Head evaluates the performance of IRS annually. BBU (biometrics) facilitates quality assurance processes with respect to data analysis, collection, interpretation and reporting. There are currently five functional research units, which IRRI is planning to combine into three, and eight institutional service units.
Refereed journal articles are important as one quality measure, although it is recognized that units such as engineering, genetic resources and breeding have different major outputs. IRRI has analysed its scientific performance over the period 1998-2000 in an internal assessment made of the different types of publications by division[43]. In that study, IRRI produced 346 refereed journal papers, 169 papers in monographs, 15 serials, and 33 books over three years. The scientists publish in high quality journals. Some papers have been published in high impact journals such as Nature, Science, Nature, Biotechnology, Plant Physiology. Through the web of science the citations were determined for several recent publications. The papers were well cited and papers across disciplines were ranked highly. That is a substantial output and the Panel commends IRRI for this demonstration of a good scientific standard.
In its stakeholder survey, the Panel asked for feedback on the value and accessibility of IRRI’s research publications. Of a total of 58 respondents, mostly from ARIs and NARIs, who commented on IRRI publications, most found the publications both valuable and accessible. These respondents came equally from all respondent groups. Among most groups there were also those - a minority, who felt that IRRI publications were of varying quality. Seven respondents from NARIs and Southern universities felt that IRRI’s publications were not easily available.
The Panel also reviewed the publication list by Division for the entire study period and looked closely at the ten most significant publications of each functional unit, as determined by the units themselves.
Plant Breeding, Genetics and Biochemistry (PBGB): The PBGB Division focused more on biotechnology and the breeding process in recent years instead of biochemistry. The department has 11 breeders and 4 biotechnologists among the IRS staff. Several IRFs and PDFs are active in this division. The Division staff is highly qualified. The main output of the breeders being varieties, they publish less. On average the breeders published 1.4 refereed papers per year. However, the molecular biologists publish much more (average 4.3 refereed papers per year) than the average standard in advanced institutions for their discipline.
The Division strongly supports the research Programmes. In the favourable systems the breeders have been very active in the NPT process (developing resistant NPTs). In the unfavourable environments the breeders had successes in the uplands, rainfed lowlands and in developing aerobic rice varieties (spin off of the upland programme). (See Chapters 3 and 4).
The reduction in overall budget has led to a reduction of the breeding programme. In Ubon, Thailand the RLR breeding programme was stopped and at IRRI headquarters the size of the breeding programmes has diminished.
Crop Soil and Water Sciences Division (CSWD): The Divisions on Agronomy, Physiology and Agroecology and on Soils and Water Sciences have been merged in the review period. The Division has 14 IRS positions and several IRF and PDF positions. The scientists work in Programmes 2 and 3 and strongly contribute to the NRM projects. The Division is well equipped. The Division has a long history of high quality science and publications in high impact journals. On average, CSWS scientists published 2.6 refereed papers per IRS per year, which is high. In this Division, a high turnover of staff has taken place but high quality new staff have been found to fill some of these positions. CSWD has faced an overall decline in IRS from 24 to 14 in the past three years.
Entomology and Plant Pathology Division (EPPD): The Division has 8 IRS positions and several IRF and PDF. On average, they published 2.5 refereed journal articles per year. The international standing of the Division is high. In the Division, IPM methodologies have been developed involving farmer participatory approaches.
Social Sciences Division (SSD): In this Division 5 core IRS, 2 IRFs and 2 PDFs are currently employed. They published 1.7 refereed journal papers per scientist per year and a large output in books, conference papers, etc. They contribute to Programme 3 and Programme 4. In the Panel’s judgement, the increased need for social scientist input in Programmes 2 and 3 indicates the need for strengthening the Division.
Agricultural Engineering Unit (AEU): This Unit has been reduced in size and the IRS now also run the IRRI farm and conduct the post harvest work that is expanding because of the ADB funded programme.
Communication and Publication Services: The Panel commends IRRI for changing from the Annual Report and Technical Programme report to the Rice Today magazine, and for the DG report for details on Project progress and publications in journals and proceedings. Much has been put on the web and IRRI is commended for this. IRRI books have been extremely well used and cited by (rice) scientists worldwide. The policy of distributing books to all relevant libraries in developing countries has been very instrumental for the spread of scientific achievements through the scientific community in rice growing countries. Most libraries have no resources to purchase expensive journals or books. With the increasing importance of the Internet also in developing countries it is very important that IRRI continues with web-based publications, but it is recognized that this is not a straightforward process. The IRS in the team received several awards for design of covers, photography and articles in the press.
Genetic Resources Centre: This is the world’s main storage of rice germplasm although for safety reasons most of the germplasm is in a duplicate store at the USDA-ARS National Centre for Genetic Resources Preservation, Fort Collins (USA).
In 2003, the NRS of GRC received the CGIAR 2003 Science Award for best support team based on the upgrading of procedures, technologies and infrastructure of the International Rice Genebank Collection. See Chapter 2 for more detailed discussion on the Genetic Resources Centre.
Central Research Farm: The Panel visited the farm, and especially the new post harvest systems for operation and demonstration purposes were shown to the Panel. This is an important development especially in view of the enormous losses of rice in the post harvest process of up to 20%. The farm is run well and a database has been developed to keep records of field results.
Other Units: These units include: Climate Unit; Seed Health Unit; Analytical Service Laboratory; Biometrics and Bioinformatics Unit (Chapter 2); Information Technology Services. These units were thoroughly reviewed during the 5th EPMR and the Panel learned that these service units still keep up the high level of service. Some services were visited by the consultant and he confirmed this view.
As a mission-oriented organization IRRI constantly checks the relevance of its work against the context of the world in which it operates. As noted in Chapter 1, this world is changing fast. The pace of science and technology has accelerated, and the growth and complexity of the economies of the rice producing countries in Asia have increased in the past five years. The demands on IRRI could easily lead to it becoming all things to all people and losing focus. These changes also challenge IRRI’s identity and function, with the need for regular review and recurrent articulation. IRRI is helped in this process through its close operating partnerships with a wide range of organizations, both among rice producing countries and more broadly. These relationships are crucial to the successful and effective delivery of its mission, helping to guide the planning process and are essential to the effective delivery of research results to alleviate poverty.
IRRI does not work alone. Historically the Institute has developed strong working relationships with the agricultural agencies of rice-growing countries and has a tradition of collaborative science with many leading ARIs built on mutual scientific respect. It has an array of interactions with these, where rice is the connecting theme, and information, products, and services flow between and among the partners interactively. Previous chapters have concentrated on what is being exchanged, but this section tries to capture the why, who and where of these interactions.
IRRI has bilateral arrangements with sixteen rice-growing countries in Asia, with offices in ten of these to support research and training staff located in those countries. Each of the sixteen countries also has a delegated IRS staff member at IRRI acting as resource and liaison person; this has been a very successful arrangement in providing a single point of scientific contact within headquarters for each country. IRRI does not maintain the same links with countries in Africa or the Americas, but it does have an important role of long-distance provider of germplasm, advanced degree training, limited support to NARS undergraduate and technical training courses, and sponsored consultancies.
High levels of activity are maintained in countries such as Japan, Korea and China, with greater levels of economic development in topics such as plant breeding, genetics genomics and NRM (in the case of China), as well as in some countries that are at a low level of economic development or national capacity such as Laos and Myanmar. Lower levels of activity may result from completion of externally funded special projects or changing political circumstances, but low income countries[44] and poverty affected regions of large countries will always be IRRI’s primary target of concern. Funding and cessation of special bilateral projects between individual countries with IRRI and donors changes the balance of these interactions with NARS from time to time, and inevitably lead to a degree of ad hoccery that does not make it easy for the Centre to plan and deliver its Programmes in a strategic manner.
In discussion with country representatives, Panel members were told that once GDP per capita reaches a certain level (IRRI work suggests $1500/pc/yr) the proportion of rice (or other staples) in the diet falls significantly, and therefore for countries such as Thailand and Korea, the need for a country office was questioned, other than for those types of interactions that would be entered into with developed countries in advanced research areas. For the mid-range countries, where GDP per capita is between US$500 and US$1500, there are generally significant regional or localized problem areas that would benefit from IRRI’s work, but IRRI’s involvement appears patchy or sporadic. For the poorest countries there appears to be a genuine need for continuing the long sustained involvement by IRRI in capacity building for rice research and production.
Despite recent down-sizing at IRRI because of restrictions to funding, there is still much the same level of expectation among most countries in the region as five years ago. Responses to the Panel’s questionnaire and interviews with NARS partner organizations indicate that in some areas, such as ‘upstream’ areas of research (bioinformatics, genomics, and other areas of advanced rice germplasm improvement), the demand for research collaboration and specific training has increased in recent years. This poses interesting questions for IRRI on which areas of training and knowledge interchange run at current, increased or decreased levels in the future. The Consortia provide a useful mechanism for addressing this question. Through the Consortium approach, steering committees of partners can identify priorities for training and information exchange, as well as research (Chapters 3, 4 and 5).
The basis for IRRI’s attractiveness for both NARS and ARIs is its impartial international nature, with freely available public goods and a long established reputation for scientific excellence, which commands respect from peers in leading research institutions around the world.
Compared with five years ago, the Panel considers that IRRI-NARS interactions have strengthened considerably through the expanded role of the two major Consortia (IRRC and CURE). The Consortia have evolved into much more meaningful partnerships where research is trialed at on-farm sites as well as long-term station experiments, regional priorities are considered and acted upon together, feeding upwards into the management decisions of individual countries and IRRI, and where participatory research, training and information dissemination are all shared as a collective responsibility. The Panel considers that the role of these two Consortia can be expanded even further in the future (see Chapters 7 and 8). However, not all countries with which IRRI maintains close relationships are covered through these Consortia, and not all objectives and activities are most appropriately targeted through their structures. Many of the specific biotechnology and pre-breeding interchange activities are supported by separate Networks of interested parties for example (Chapter 2). In addition, IRRI maintains a considerable level of interaction all round the world with countries, institutions and individuals on different aspects of rice.
In Asia the strength of the NARS is considerable, and IRRI has not historically had to rely heavily on relationships with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for assistance in germplasm distribution, information dissemination or participatory research, as has been more common for example among the IARCs in Africa. However, there are many specific instances where IRRI works closely with particular NGOs to achieve widespread dissemination of particular technology interventions. For example, NGOs are assisting with delivering IPM packages widely in Bangladesh (Proshika), Thailand (Population Community Development) and through other parts of the region (World Vision). The Seed Health Improvement project in Bangladesh has partnerships with a large number of NGOs including CARE, Proshika, Grammen Krishi Boundation and BRAC.
The 5th EPMR made a point in favour of increased partnerships with the private sector. The potential value that links can bring IRRI is often substantial and clear. However, where these benefits come at a price for the institution’s status or for its clients, then the links can be very questionable. IRRI has developed a policy[45] which this EPMR supports. IRRI now has a much more mature position than five years ago, created in part by its experience with the Golden Rice project. The argument for interaction with other parts of the private sector, such as in manufacturing of engineering equipment (harvesters, threshers, rice mills) is similar. While IRRI has been an active researcher and developer of innovative rice industry machinery, its role is to demonstrate the advantages that such prototypes represent in terms of market opportunity to the private sector and stimulate commercial development that will assist the adoption of more sustainable, productive and labour saving rice production. This is the principle that underlies the new initiatives in post-harvesting research and development in Programme 2, and has already been successful in stimulating local manufacture of direct seeding and harvesting equipment in the rice-wheat sector in Pakistan and India. The Panel commends IRRI for maintaining a judicious and balanced relationship with the private sector, in keeping with its role as an international distributor of public goods.
IRRI already has a wide range of relationships with a number of selected ARIs in shuttle breeding programmes, genetic material and data sharing activities. For example, it maintains a range of data base services that are freely accessible through its web site, such as IRIS, the International Rice Information System that provides up-to-date global information on genetic resources, including germplasm pedigrees, field evaluations, genomics, genetic and environmental maps. A number of ARIs collaborate in providing this information, strengthening its overall scope and completeness. Similarly, IRRI maintains and regularly updates free databases on world rice statistics that are, in the Panel’s opinion, more reliable and current than others. All rice producing countries find these services valuable.
In the past five years the number of ARIs, both in the public and private sector, working on rice worldwide has expanded substantially as described earlier in this Report. This increases the opportunities for IRRI to draw on a larger pool of outstanding scientists who are at the forefront of in rice biotechnology, modelling, production environment characterization and so forth, beyond its existing linkages. As mentioned in Chapters 2 and 8, IRRI relies very significantly on certain ARIs for rice genomics and maintaining these links is vital to its goal of characterizing and developing better germplasm. Responses to the EPMR Questionnaire indicated that a number of leading research institutes would be interested in locating scientists at IRRI on guest fellowships, and in attracting national research foundation support for post-graduate students for joint research projects. The opportunity certainly now exists to interest a wider range of research institutes in focussing their attention on rice and rice growing areas in joint research proposals.
The Panel suggests that IRRI stimulate joint research proposals from alternative national research funds from leading institutions to conduct research on cutting-edge topics, which would draw a larger critical mass of visiting scientists and post graduate students to rice research located in IRRI’s headquarters at Los Baños.
IRRI has initiated or is part of a considerable number of networks and consortia, set up to assist cooperation between countries and organizations in specific areas of rice research and development. Most of these have been commented on in previous chapters, with discussion particularly on the role of Consortia now and in the future. The following list assists the reader to locate these discussions:
This impressive list demonstrates IRRI’s overall level of engagement with NARS in Asia and with a number of the advanced institutes in the region and more widely in the world that are actively involved in rice improvement, production systems and delivery of research results to local communities. Networks do not normally seek to implement field based research and development among multiple partners in the same way as the Consortia described in Chapters 3 and 4, but rather act as information and germplasm exchange mechanisms, often on relatively small budgets beyond that supplied by the members themselves to meeting activities. Some are at the mercy of fluctuations in external funding such as INGER, where there has been a decline in a previously strong and active network attributable to withdrawal of these special project funds. In these circumstances, networks still function, but in much the same way as scientific professional societies, by convening workshops and other information exchange mechanisms and are valuable for these functions but cannot undertake much more.
In the case of INGER, other mechanisms for funding need to be sought for what has been a high-profile, valuable activity. It would seem that one alternative mechanism, which does not put the whole onus on IRRI’s tightly stretched funds, would be to consider some type of membership contribution, particularly from the better off countries in the Network.
The Panel recommends that IRRI establish a forum of rice growing countries with the purpose of financing and revitalizing INGER.
Although PETRRA (Poverty Elimination Through Rice Research Assistance) is listed as a network, it is discussed among the bilateral special projects because of its scale and functions.
IRRI has had a long tradition in being a partner in bilateral projects between individual countries and donors. For example, IRRI has assisted the Government of Myanmar through formal bilateral arrangements since 1977 until 2002. In the 25 years of this collaboration, five major bilateral country projects, funded in large part by CIDA and IDRC, and numerous smaller projects have been carried out to help increase rice production to one of self-sufficiency, contributing one third of the gross domestic product of the country. The final impact study carried out by IRRI in 2002 found that for a total investment of $US2.2M there had resulted in a net present gain of US$140 M, equivalent to a rate of return of 155% per year for the past 25 years[46]. Project work has also been conducted to strengthen the country’s agricultural research capacity, improve nutrient management, and in particular find sustainable low cost organic based nutrient systems after the withdrawal of fertilizer subsidies in the 1990s.
Large impact bilateral projects have been carried out in other poor Asian countries, particularly Bhutan, Cambodia and Laos. In all these countries agriculture occupies over three quarters of the population, and rice constitutes the major basic food. Bilateral programmes, with IDRC, SDC and Ausaid long-term donor support, have been the principal mechanism by which the governments have been able to develop national agricultural research organizations, with a cadre of trained personnel, infrastructure, and a national rice germplasm collection, including the recovery and utilization of many hundred landraces and wild rices.
Two major projects were active at the time of the review and Panel members visited both. A 15-year capacity building project in the Lao PDR will finish in 2005, by which time the national research programme is expected to be in a position to run independently its national rice breeding and selection, rice agronomic research with applications in upland and lowland environments. The project has included infrastructure development, collection of the national rice germplasm (over 13,000 accessions), development of improved varieties from indigenous material, and evaluation of systems of intensification and diversification appropriate to local specific environments. The present phase is on capacity building with in-house training of national staff in all aspects of research from basic English and field technical support to advanced post graduate studies. Ninety percent of rice research funding in Laos comes from this project, and there is substantial uncertainty as to where alternative funding may be coming from to support key activities such as germplasm collection maintenance and in-house training once the present project ends. Comments were made to the Panel that although a better exit strategy is being developed than occurred for the similar project in Cambodia that finished in 2002, there is still the danger that a large gap in continuity could see much of the present impact diminished, as has happened in Cambodia.
PETRRA, an even larger project managed by IRRI in Bangladesh and supported by DFID, is in its final phase and will not run beyond 2004. This ambitious project is targeting the need for improved overall management systems of current intensive rice production in districts that have high population densities and growth rates above 2.5%. There is a large emphasis on participatory approaches with more than 45 NGOs and non technical facilitators working with BRRI and IRRI scientists, and engaging with over 500 villages in eight regions. The project is also working on a number of policy issues, and on women-led extension capacity building. As with many technology transfer projects it inevitably draws upon the achievements of the past from a number of sources, such as the Urea SuperGranule (USG) and the input sector distributor network, that was set up through a long period of earlier work undertaken by the International Soil Fertility and Crop Development Centre (IFDC). The project is coupling this approach with accelerating the introduction of IRRI-BRRI improved varieties and SSNM and IPM ‘packages’ in systems of sustainable production. The size and range of objectives of the project are impressive.
There are some common characteristics of such projects. First of all, they are largely in the downstream area of applied research which may rightly be called development. Their intention is to see the adoption of better practices and crops at a faster rate over wide areas as the best means of tackling poverty reduction. As such, they are clearly central to IRRI’s main objective. They are distinguished by having very clear time lines and objectives, which are closely monitored by the donor through external reviews. As a result of normally having ex ante and ex post impact studies built into the project evaluation, the donor is able to obtain a good estimate of the relative success of the project. These are all excellent features. However, a few concerns remain in the minds of the Panel. These are the exit strategies (particularly for very poor countries) where the supposition that internal country resources will be sufficient to maintain salary and operating costs of research and extension personnel after the project finishes may be unfounded, and the tendency for them to operate very largely as completely independent units from the rest of IRRI. In addressing the issue of exit strategies, the planning process should view these independently from the project funding, and possibly engage an independent consultant such as FAO to develop an on-going management strategy that can maintain the impetus and value of the good work done within the project.
Without this very large set of partnership arrangements, IRRI would cease to function in its present capacity. The range of partnership activities is very wide, and provides an adequate mechanism so that IRRI can draw adequately on the world knowledge of rice science, listen and respond appropriately to clients and deliver targeted research results to where they are most needed.
There are alternative models that could provide the same function: for example, by having a larger network of country offices with more IRS in outreach locations. This has been the model used in several other large CGIAR Centres that have mandates that cover crops grown in widely distributed parts of the globe. Would the future security of rice production for the poor be better served if IRRI were to adopt this model in the future, especially if there is strong demand to shift its distribution of resources further into new areas of need? It could be argued that current arrangements do not give IRRI sufficient visibility and presence in some Asian countries (such as those which are still in the low to medium wealth categories and have no country office). On the other hand, the effectiveness and speed that IRRI can bring to bear in solving a research problem has certainly been greater from having a critical mass of specialists located in one spot where they have access to the range of support services, especially in laboratory facilities, IT and biometrics. These are to some extent issues of equity versus efficiency. This is not for the Panel to debate, but should be on IRRI’s list of issues to investigate further.
The Panel recommends that IRRI commission a study, based on the vision of IRRI’s role in 5-15 years, to assess the relative merits of the current model comprising some outreach activities but with the majority of scientists in headquarters, with a model which has more outreach research staff in all those rice producing countries where close proximity and visible presence are deemed necessary.
The Panel cannot over-emphasize the importance of having effective Partner relationships in fulfilling IRRI’s effectiveness. Management and IRRI scientists fully appreciate this, but there is always some tension in working to accommodate a wide range of country and donor priorities. The Panel noted that these tensions inevitably lead to some degree of short-term ad hoc solutions in terms of the distribution of resources and research effort across countries. Elevating the role of Consortia both within IRRI and externally to have a more visible presence should reassure donors to the relevance of IRRI’s work.
|
[42] Calculated as a
proportion for 70 IRS allocating >10% of time to research programmes. Each
bar represents a percentage of the staff that published that number of refereed
journal papers annually on average in the past 6 years. [43] Ramos, M.M. and C.S. Austria: Knowledge Sharing in Rice Research: the Literature Output of International Rice Research Institute Scientists, 1990-2000. [44] Using World Bank economic classification: low income economies <$US 760/capita/year. [45] IRRI’s Policy on Partnership with the Private Sector. [46] Shrestha, S. et al. 2002: An economic impact assessment of Myanmar-IRRI country programs. IRRI Los Baños, Philippines. |
