7.1 Overview
7.2 Governance and Leadership
7.3 Organizational Structure
7.4 Planning and Review Processes
7.5 Institutional Relationships
7.6 Overall Assessment
As the first CGIAR centre IRRI's legal and governance structure has, in broad outline, been widely employed by sister institutions. While modifications have been and continue to be made, basically the model designed for IRRI has successfully stood the test of time.
As specified in its founding documents IRRI is a philanthropic, non-stock, non-profit Philippine Corporation. IRRI is accorded the status, privileges and perquisites of an international organization by decree of the President of the Philippines. While this arrangement is working satisfactorily, it is desirable to reconstitute IRRI through an international agreement. Discussions with respect to the matter are now under way with relevant authorities. The Panel endorses these initiatives.
Ultimate responsibility for IRRI's governance rests with IRRI's fifteen international trustees. These trustees select the DG and elect fellow Board members. While the focus of their deliberations is on policy formulation, they are challenged to be sufficiently well informed and capable to monitor operations and offer wise counsel with regard to IRRI's strategies, plans, programmes, and management. At the same time they must restrain themselves not to become directly involved in the day-to-day management of IRRI's business. Management, of matters other than the business of the Board, is properly the province of the DG and his staff. It is with the foregoing in mind that we comment next on the functioning of IRRI's Board of Trustees during the period under review.
7.2.1 Functioning of the Board
7.2.2 Leadership by Senior Management
7.2.3 Assessment and Recommendation
During the last few years, IRRI's Board has made substantive, positive changes in virtually all areas affecting its performance. Today, the Board has good leadership and its committees are active and functioning well. The distinction between the Board's role (policy making) and that of the senior executives (management) is understood. The excellent documentation provided to them is exemplary in content, organization, and timely delivery. This improvement has come about as the result of an IRRI decision to commit the resources required to support the trustees' work professionally. The Board operates in an open but businesslike, straightforward manner with good member participation. A serious evaluation of DG performance is conducted annually and the Board has made a self-evaluation of its own activities. Relationships between the DG and the Trustees are good and proper; those between the Chair and the DG are cordial, supportive and candid. Committees, which do much of the Board's work, take their tasks seriously. A second woman trustee is scheduled to join the Board in January 1993.
A particularly impressive Board practice is the manner in which the Programme Committee handles its business. Because it reviews and discusses programme matters systematically two times a year, the members are able to stay current with what is going on. Well written minutes of all committee and Board meetings are promptly prepared and widely distributed as is a careful log of specific actions taken. Understandably, both the trustees and staff members would like to have more opportunities to interact with one another on a one-to-one basis. But the Chair makes up for this in part by communicating the results of the trustees' deliberations directly to an Institute-wide staff meeting at the end of each Board meeting.
The 1987 External Management Review recommended that several major improvements be made in the way the IRRI Board carried out its responsibilities. Virtually all of those recommended changes have been successfully made (Appendix VII). This does not mean that additional changes are not needed. To our view, management succession in the Board needs to be better secured by further improving the trustee nomination and selection process. For example, we note that the Board Chair and the Chairs of two key committees all complete their terms next year (Table 7.1). It would be comforting indeed if the Board had more members who were able, experienced, ready and willing to step into these vacancies. This suggests that in its search for new trustees the Board would be wise to place highest priority on the selection of individuals with the types of capabilities most needed - even if it requires deviation from what is viewed as optimal geographic distribution.
From our interviews with new trustees and from the responses of trustees to a questionnaire survey conducted for this review by the CGIAR Secretariat, it became apparent that their initial orientation to their responsibilities and to IRRI left much to be desired. An informative, well organized, up to date Board of Trustees Handbook has now been prepared. That should be quite helpful. Nevertheless, the Board should charge an appropriate person with the responsibility of carrying out a thorough orientation of new trustees. When one takes into account the fact that three trustees are ex-officio, the effective number of working Board members is small. Given the work load that the Board has set for itself and the need not to have the same trustee serve on more than two committees, we are sympathetic with the Board's desire to increase its membership by one.
Capacity to visualize and generate change is an accepted hallmark of good leadership. The ability to achieve goals is an important attribute of good management. Thus, strong leadership and good management are essential for setting strategic directions and implementing plans, with minimal disruption.
Table 7.1 IRRI Board of Trustees and their Terms of Office, 1985-1993
In Chapter 2 of our report we highlighted the main dimensions of the transformation IRRI has been undergoing since the last external review. The changes made have been radical and affected the very foundations of IRRI as an institution. They concerned the identity of IRRI as an institution and as a community, why it existed, what it stood for, and what it sought to achieve.
The lion's share of the credit for IRRI's transformation goes to the visionary and energetic leadership provided by the Director General each step of the way. He initiated and led a time-consuming but consensus-building strategic planning effort that brought clarity to IRRI's identity and purpose. He followed this with a major and carefully-designed effort to realign IRRI's staffing, from the top management positions to the lowest levels of the IRRI hierarchy, including an unprecedented and bold downsizing effort which slimmed IRRI's NRS by 25 percent, and another that led to replacement of half of IRRI's internationally recruited staff. He led a successful campaign to raise the nearly US$12 million required to rehabilitate IRRI's outmoded facilities, and another to introduce a matrix system for managing research.
During IRRI's transformation the DG had the backing of his Board, the management team he assembled, and the many friends of IRRI who were convinced that the institution needed to be revitalized.
As expected, it was not an easy transition. The external reviews five years ago found that IRRI suffered from institutional 'hardening of the arteries'. Opposition to changes from inside and outside of IRRI required lengthy deliberations which at times left scars, some of which are still visible. The levels of stress were high, not only among staff, but also among their families. Scientists had to devote time to the processes necessary for change, taking energy away from research. Departures of colleagues raised fears among staff about their own futures. As a result, morale was down and there was an unsettled feeling among staff. Many were uncomfortable about new and different ways of doing things.
IRRI is not yet at a steady state. Most of the planned changes have been made and productivity and morale appear to be on the rise. However, the changes that really count - the changes in attitudes and convictions of people - are not complete. Also, many staff are tired of change. Some still feel insecure, not knowing what may come next from top management. Both IRS and NRS seek reassurance of their worth and greater clarity about their futures. Researchers desire stronger scientific leadership and attention to scientific quality.
In summary, IRRI's top leadership has successfully brought the institution to a new threshold of productivity and opportunity. Now the leadership challenge is to steady the course by generating renewed confidence within the IRRI family and bringing greater stability to the working environment. For this, top management and staff need better understanding and appreciation of each other's concerns. Both have proven in the past that they are equal to this task.
In CGIAR circles there is concern about the capacity of centre boards to carry out their pivotal responsibilities effectively and consistently. That is one of the reasons that we have gone to such length to spell out the improvements made by the Board whose work we are reviewing. We conclude that the IRRI Board is functioning well.
Recommendation 7.1
The Panel recommends that the Board further improve the way it selects and orients its new trustees.
With respect to our assessment of senior leadership, we observe that through its strategic planning process the Board and management decided that major changes were in order. Many of the changes mandated, such as altering the mix of scientific talent and downsizing staff, were both unsettling and demanding. It is our sense that leadership has demonstrated that it was equal to the demands of the change-driven tasks. The present challenges are primarily those of consolidation and moving forward on an even keel.
IRRI's strategic plan is the driving force giving rise to the present organizational structure. Figure 2.2 shows the way the Institute divides its activities into organizational units, how authority is delegated (down the hierarchy) and what the intended vertical reporting relationships are.
IRRI's current top leadership structure was designed and staffed to cope with the special demands imposed by the transformation which is now well along. As this process nears completion and the extraordinary management requirements of special initiatives (such as instituting the new program management and matrix organization system, realigning both the IRS and the NRS, and rehabilitating IRRI's infrastructure) structural changes in organization may be desirable. This will depend upon such considerations as the strengths and styles of the DG and his top management team, as well as the nature and size of the Centre's business. It is conceivable, for example, that the Director for Administration might handle both his present portfolio and that of the Director of Operations. At present, however, the changes in organizational structure that most interest us pertain to research management (Chapter 4).
A structural matter that is not discussed in Chapter 4 is the functioning of three high level standing committees. All three of these committees are important communication mechanisms, operate on a collegial basis, and help facilitate consensus building. The Steering Committee (SC) consisting of the DG and three DDGs is at the top of the pyramid. Among other matters the SC receives and reviews recommendations of the other two high level committees - the Institute Programme Committee (IPC) and the Management Committee (MC). It meets at least twice a month. Its stated function is to review the recommendations of all other committees (or decisions which may have been delegated to them) as an executive level forum and make recommendations to the DG. In practice, because the DG is the chair, the SC does take decisions and a listing of these actions is distributed to staff within three days.
The IPC is a large institute-wide body, co-chaired by the DDGs for research and international programmes, and composed of the DDG - Finance and Administration, Director of Finance, Director of Operations, all division and centre heads, and programme leaders. The IPC is in effect a forum for reaching consensus on institute guidelines, procedures, position papers, programme, and policy changes for recommendation to the SC.
The MC performs the same function with respect to management - related issues that the IPC deals with in the programme area. It has eight members - the four on the SC plus the directors of finance, administration, and operations and the manager of human resources development. It is currently chaired by the DDG - Finance and Administration.
Minutes, of both the IPC and the MC, are widely distributed within a week of the committees' meetings. Both committees meet monthly. The DG participates in IPC and MC meetings as the need arises.
These committees are a major means of communicating and sharing information horizontally across the research and international programmes, finance and administration. Such functions must be performed. While the committees consume time, they are an integral part of IRRI's organizational structure. Hence, the management task is to make them function as efficiently as possible.
IRRI's dispersed operations pose horizontal communication problems for out-posted staff. That aspect of IRRI's structure was materially improved with the establishment of an International Programmes Management Office. Responsibility for arranging needed backstopping and seeing to it that liaison functions are performed promptly is now pinpointed in the Head of that office who oversees country and regional projects. This new arrangement seems to be working satisfactorily and is expected to improve further now that each outposted staff member is likely to be linked to the appropriate division and thus will have a disciplinary home.
7.4.1 Strategic and Operational Planning
7.4.2 Internal Monitoring and Review
7.4.3 Assessment
During the last five years IRRI has been deluged with an almost continuous succession of planning and review exercises. Because many of these exercises are externally induced, (by TAC, the CGIAR, donors, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), etc.) their timing and content are not necessarily under IRRI's control. This is an important matter. In some cases these exercises have even overlapped one another. For example, while the main phase of this review was underway staff were busily engaged in preparing IRRI's mid term plan for 1994-98 and hosting reviewers from two NGOs.
As already noted, planning and review activities are fully participatory. Thus, the time consumed is for some staff a substantial portion of that available. No one wishes to engage in planning or reviews that are ends in themselves rather than means to a greater end. Such endeavours can and often do compete with rather than complement the research and educational work for which the Centre exists. Therefore, IRRI and relevant external entities need to make careful ex ante benefit-cost analyses before deciding to initiate such activities.
IRRI's first major long-term institute-wide strategic planning exercise was launched in 1986. The third draft of that "unofficial" plan was presented to the external review teams in 1987. The review teams, while commending IRRI for initiating such an important effort, felt that the draft plan lacked a vision of the future foreseen for the institute; was vague in its statement of priorities, goals and objectives; and looked primarily at IRRI's programme rather than at the totality of the institution. With the arrival of the new DG in 1988 work on the strategic plan was refocused and expedited. The resulting long-term strategic plan, IRRI toward 2000 and Beyond, was completed in 1989 as was the Centre's first five-year operating plan which covered the period 1990-1994.
Our sense, as reflected in our commentary throughout this report, is that IRRI's vision of the future program of activities and priorities as laid out in the long-term strategic plan is valid and appropriate and is providing guidance for the Institute's overall organization, programmes and operations. Goals and objectives are presented for each of the five ecosystem research programmes and for the activities pursued under what the plan calls international support programmes. These and the means employed in pursuing them are spelled out in greater depth in the five-year operating plan. Priorities are clarified by specifying the financial and human resources allocated to programmes and sub-programmes (which in annual budgets are further broken down by individual projects). The transparency of this planning process is appreciated by staff, clients and donors alike.
Strategic and five-year operating plans are seen as iterative. Revisions in operating plans with some shifts in priorities occur frequently - in response to externally as well as internally induced forces (lessons acquired from experience, changes in fund availability, changing CGIAR policies, etc.). In the process of deciding how and when plans are to be changed IRRI draws on the counsel of colleagues in developing countries, external reviewers of several types, donors, and, of course, TAC. This leads us logically into consideration of the monitoring and review mechanisms IRRI employs.
Mechanisms employed by IRRI for monitoring and review are of four general types all of which are intended to help the institution maintain scientific quality and relevance: 1) those built into the institute's programme-budgeting research-management model; 2) those done through direct staff-trustee dialogue; 3) peer reviews; and 4) impact assessments.
In the first type, staff members involved assess actual performance (output) relative to the project's or programme's stated goals. Results of this assessment are taken into account in adjusting work plans. This type of assessment is designed to produce a much more substantive product than the series of presentations by individual staff members of a 'show and tell' nature that characterized IRRI's former internal programme review. While the old model was a useful communication device and quite helpful in orienting new staff members and trustees, it was seldom sufficiently analytical to provide a critical input into the scientists' work. Nor did the earlier process crystallize policy issues for consideration by the Board and management.
The second type of review involves the presentation to the Programme Committee of the Board of written and narrative reports of progress and issues of the research and international programmes. Scientists and trustees engage in open dialogue in the discussions that ensue. Later in the week the Trustees' Programme Committee makes its oral and written report to the full Board and the Board Chair reports to IRRI staff at the end of the meeting. Because both the staff and trustees do this work well, this review has proven to be useful. It is a means of bringing to bear the informed views of concerned individuals who are one step removed from the actual projects. Nevertheless, this useful mechanism has drawbacks. The trustee committee simply cannot allocate enough time to this exercise to cover all programmes in detail every year and do the job well, so care has to be exercised in selecting which ones should be examined and in what depth. Further, with a recent change, this process now gives increasing attention to the role and functioning of IRRI's research divisions. Prior to 1987, IRRI trustees tended to neglect management issues. That was corrected. Now the trustees are making an organized effort to be better informed about what is happening in the divisions. We regard this as a positive development.
The third mechanism, peer reviews, was recommended in the 1987 external review. Since then 11 peer reviews have been conducted: five on programmes, projects or activities in research; one at the disciplinary level (Entomology); four involving international programmes; and one (Women in Rice Farming Systems) which was classified as both research and international programmes. One was carried out in 1989, five in 1990, four in 1991, and one in 1992.
Presumably these reviews have been helpful because IRRI has implemented a high proportion of the recommendations they contained. We note, however, that all 11 of the reviews have been almost exclusively oriented towards programme content and did not sufficiently cover quality of scientific inputs, processes and outputs. The terms of reference were generally too broad to expect the reviewers to make critical inputs into the improvement of science at the disciplinary level.
The fourth mechanism, impact assessment, is a somewhat different kind of review. Such assessments may be and often are research projects in themselves. Most are ex post in nature. They seek to determine the consequences of actions already taken or expenditures already made - rates of return on investments in research or training, the socio-economic or environmental consequences of adopting a new technology, etc. But increasingly there is need for prior (ex ante) assessment of the probable socio-economic and/or environmental impact of a technology, programme or policy. Such assessments are often difficult to make. Interpretation of findings may turn out to be controversial. Methodological problems exist. For example, fully satisfactory techniques for measuring (ex ante or even ex post) the impacts of technology on intergenerational equity have not yet been developed.
Because of such problems, and the claim by some that IRRI's assessment of work in which it was involved might not be fully objective, it has been suggested that the Centre should leave impact studies to others. We disagree. Outside assessments should of course be made. But IRRI needs to do so also - especially it should conduct ex ante impact studies as an aid to setting programme priorities. IRRI is doing just that. Currently it is engaged in nine studies designed to measure socio-economic, environmental, developmental impacts. One of them involves the use of ex ante impact assessment in establishing priorities for rice research.
IRRI has made real progress in its long- and short-term planning. Strategic and operating plans are in place and are guiding the institution's structural and programmatic development. Further, extensive improvements have been made in monitoring and review processes. It is our view, however, that overplanning and overreviewing can stifle progress, especially in a research organization. Now that IRRI has substantial experience in strategic planning it is in a position to modify its strategies quickly in response to major challenges such as those that are occurring in funding. Even so, such modification exercises should be kept to the minimum necessary to reflect changes in direction.
With respect to monitoring and review processes we would like to make the following two recommendations:
Recommendation 7.2
The Panel recommends that future peer reviews include a critical assessment of scientific quality.
Recommendation 7.3
The Panel recommends that IRRI continue to conduct impact assessment studies.
7.5.1 Host Country Relationships
7.5.2 National Institutions
7.5.3 International Organizations
7.5.4 Advanced Scientific Institutions
7.5.5 Donors
7.5.6 Assessment
In policy and in practice IRRI is an open, externally oriented institution. Its products and services are widely sought and appreciated. Thus it is not surprising that we find the Institute's institutional relations both cordial and satisfactory.
In this section we discuss linkages and relationships with five sets of institutions: host countries; national institutions; international organizations; advanced scientific institutions; and donors. Because space does not permit us to dwell on many of the positive aspects of these generally high quality relationships, our focus is on recent developments and evolving issues.
A sense of the magnitude and far reaching range of IRRI's international relationships may be gleaned from the following. As of August 1992 the Institute had agreements for cooperative activities with: 1) 42 different organizations (mostly research institutions and universities) involved in the national research systems in 14 developing countries; 2) 31 research institutions and universities in 9 industrialized countries; 3) 15 IARCs, three of them not affiliated with the CGIAR; and 4) with two other regional/international centres.
Additionally, IRRI's research Programme had a total of 29 contracted projects and collaborative agreements in nine industrialized and five developing countries, while its International Programme listed 13 country and regional projects plus three networks in this category.
IRRI interacts with its host country the Philippines at numerous levels and in a variety of ways. Most immediate are the daily interactions with the University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB), IRRI's landlord, and the community of Los Baños. These complex cross-cultural relationships require constant sensitive nurturing by all parties involved. Factors contributing to the fact that these relationships appear to be strengthening include:
1. prompt efforts to identify and deal with emerging issues through regular meetings of the UPLB - IRRI Committees on Administrative Affairs and Research and Training, which report annually to the UPLB - IRRI Cooperative Council chaired by UPLB Chancellor Aspiras and IRRI DG Lampe, and on a personal level between the two heads;2. UPLB - IRRI yearly work plan meetings. For 1992 14 collaborative research and training projects were agreed upon;
3. recognition and appreciation of the critical role that UPLB's graduate school performs in educating the M.S. and Ph.D. students, 30 and 40, respectively, in 1992 working toward their advanced degrees with IRRI scientists;
4. joint UPLB - IRRI actions to help improve needed services and infrastructure in the municipality (e.g. garbage disposal, highway maintenance, security, etc.);
5. agreement, after extended deliberations between IRRI, UPLB, and the larger Philippine community, with respect to next steps in the development and operation of needed containment facilities.
Beyond the campus and at the level of governmental and other public institutions, perhaps most significant is the development of PhilRice - the country's own national rice research institute with adequate land, good facilities, a dedicated staff, and its own identity. Before PhilRice it was government policy for the country to rely primarily on IRRI for rice research. With PhilRice firmly established as an independent but highly collegial peer of IRRI's, the nation has its own competence and voice on matters pertaining to rice. It can address rice-related issues of concern to Philippine producers, consumers, environmentalists, government policy makers and the public at large. A degree of widely felt tension generated by excessive dependency on IRRI has been removed. In its stead IRRI has another valued institutional colleague.
Annual PhilRice-IRRI collaborative work plan meetings are held. For 1992, 33 activities were discussed. IRRI also has collaborative activities with the Philippine Department of Agriculture in areas of quarantine, IPM, farming systems, agricultural mechanization, publication and communications and rice seed production. During the last two years, collaboration with the Department of Science and Technology in the area of biotechnology and biosafety has been strengthened.
The Philippines is not IRRI's only host country. As the institute decentralizes its work, its list of host countries lengthens and the complexities of off-campus operations increase. These place rising demands on IRRI to make certain that relevant memoranda of agreement are carefully worked out and fully understood in advance of initiating new or changing old working arrangements. Proper 'diplomatic preventive maintenance' in structuring formal relationships can lessen the likelihood of disruptions caused by unrealized expectations by either party. In our country visits we observed that, while methodological, personal recognition, and other 'partnership' issues existed at the operating level, overall IRRI - host country agreements were working satisfactorily.
NARS. Directly or indirectly (via the Inter-Centre Rice Review Team) we have held discussions with management and staff members of NARS in nearly all of the major rice producing countries of the world. Additionally, on behalf of the Review Panel, the TAC Secretariat has surveyed NARS worldwide (65 responses) to obtain their assessment of IRRI's past programme performance and needs (see Appendix IV for the results). Our major conclusions from the visits and the survey is that IRRI's work in germplasm conservation, evaluation and dissemination is seen as invaluable. INGER (see Section 5.2) is held in especially high esteem. It is the great value they find in this work that endears IRRI to them. This, along with the IRRI training so many have received (IRRI now has over 7100 alumni) undergird personal and professional relationships that are strong and enduring.
The existence of such generally good two-way relationships does not prevent problems from arising. An issue of intellectual property rights involving hybrid rice with China is a case in point. Happily, that problem now seems well on the road to solution.
A fairly frequently mentioned concern involves the nature of working partnerships. Such concerns are illustrated by these words of a prominent NARS leader, "Partnerships involve designing and executing collaborative research from the bottom up. No longer are we or should we be merely data collectors for IRRI scientists. Nor do we appreciate IRRI taking unilateral decisions that should involve both of us". What comes through clearly to the Panel is that even with IRRI's recent initiatives in joint planning and research consortia, it is virtually impossible for the Institute to be too careful about the fairness of its dealings and the provision of full and appropriate recognition of personal contributions made by everyone.
NGOs. Relatively new to IRRI is its growing relationships with another group of national organizations, NGOs. On IRRI's initiative we held meetings with representatives of four Philippine NGOs (The Congress for People's Agrarian Reform; The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; the Agency for Community Education Services; and IRRI Watch). Also some of us also attended parts of a two-day NGO-IRRI dialogue at the Centre. These IRRI - NGO discussions were intended to serve at least two purposes: 1) to achieve better mutual understanding of viewpoints held and of the actual socio-economic and ecological impacts of the work of IRRI and similar production-oriented research organizations; and 2) to consider the development of working partnerships (in the Philippines and elsewhere) in the conduct of mutually agreed upon rice-related activities. It is too early to assess the rate at which progress may be achieved on these two fronts. But we applaud IRRI for the open stance taken and commendable initiatives now under way with the NGO community. Relationships between some of the NGOs and IRRI could easily have become highly confrontational. Instead, because open dialogue has been facilitated, there is far greater mutual understanding.
Private Sector. Another of IRRI's unique features is its linkages with private manufacturers of small farm machinery and equipment. The institute holds over 39 patents (12 pending) on items its Agricultural Engineering Division has designed. These patents are handled as if they were in the public domain. Blueprints are distributed free of charge. The function of the patents is to prevent the exploitation of intellectual capital IRRI has created. We visited some of the manufacturers and distributors of IRRI-designed equipment. Our impression is that this IRRI-private firm relationship is an advantageous one to the parties directly involved and, more importantly, to the rice producing community at large.
In this section we comment briefly on IRRI's collaboration with sister CGIAR Centres, with other IARCs, and with non-donor development organizations such as FAO.
Collaboration involving varying degrees of commitment presently exists with 12 IARCs of the CG system. Of long-term duration are the arrangements with IITA, CIAT and WARDA involving rice production research and INGER - related matters; with ICRISAT in rice related farming systems research particularly in India; with IFPRI in collaborative policy - related research; and with IIMI on irrigation management work. More recently collaborative research on rice - fish fanning systems has been undertaken with ICLARM and a substantial wheat - rice project is now under way with CIMMYT. Some work has been undertaken with IBPGR, and IRRI has helped provide back up for CIP's office in the Philippines while ICARDA has done the same for IRRI's work in Egypt. Additionally, IRRI is currently collaborating with ICRAF in the development of a new, ecology-oriented project focusing on slash and bum agricultural systems.
With respect to non-CG affiliated IARCs, IRRI worked with ICIPE for a number of years in a collaborative arrangement that has now been terminated. It has an arrangement for the exchange of scientists with IFDC to do integrated nutrient management work and, without a formal agreement, soils work with IBSRAM and rice -vegetable farming systems work with AVRDC.
Working arrangements with three other non-donor, non-affiliated institutions merit mention. One is IRRI's successful collaboration with FAO in field-level applications of integrated pest management techniques which the Centre has helped develop and the second is CAB International. The third is a prospective research project with the World Health Organization's panel of experts on environmental management involving environmental control of human disease vectors.
IRRI's 29 contracted projects and collaborative agreements, some of which have substantial numbers of sub-projects, are primarily with advanced scientific institutions (ASIs). Some of the arrangements are with institutions such as Centre de Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) and Institute Français de Recherche Scientifique pour le Développement en Cooperation (ORSTOM) which second scientists to IRRI thus providing both support and built in linkages. That the number and significance of arrangements with ASIs is rising is not surprising given IRRI's increasing emphasis on strategic research. As might be expected, however, with one exception the contracts and arrangements are with public bodies and not with for-profit private sector firms. This prompts us to ponder whether, as more of the world's strategic research in areas using biotechnology is done in the private sector, IRRI should or could establish working linkages there. Informal ones exist (e.g. occasionally a research task or needed technical training may be purchased from a specialized firm). Further, we recognize the advantages associated with IRRI's developing its own scientifically advanced, often highly specialized laboratories and research skills. But the institute must continuously ask: How much is enough? What degree of reliance should IRRI place on ASIs be they public or private?
In an experiment which may yield a partial answer to such questions, IRRI has made arrangements for one of its biotechnologists who is 100 percent on the Institute's payroll to shuttle between Los Baños and Cornell University. She spends 10 months of the year in laboratories at Cornell and two at IRRI. We view this experiment as a creative arrangement. We cite it because we believe that other innovative shuttle-type arrangements, possibly including some with private sector institutions, merit further consideration. We recognize that an array of obstacles has to be overcome in working out each such arrangement. But it is our sense that the pay-off of such unconventional employment arrangements will rise as IRRI's involvement in strategic research intensifies.
While institutional memories in the CGIAR are fading, many donors still recall that IRRI's remarkable achievements in the 1960's helped catalyze the formation of the system. As a flagship institution in the system IRRI is respected and supported by a broad base of donors. Last year 26 of them contributed to the Centre's budget. In our visits with several donors we found them much interested in the external review, especially with the impact of the transformation they knew to be under way at IRRI. Among the varied matters they voiced was their concern that a global strategy for rice research be worked out soon so that the various responsibilities of IRRI, CIAT, WARDA and IITA can be rationalized.
IRRI has an active programme through which it interacts with the diplomatic community in Manila. Ambassadors of rice growing and donor countries (and of prospective CGIAR member nations) are invited to IRRI regularly. Special programmes are arranged for them so that they come to know what IRRI is and what it does. This is but another dimension of the Institution's open, cordial relationships with its extensive and committed group of donors. Activities along this line have resulted in the Republic of Korea joining the CGIAR in 1991.
Based upon the evidence we have collected, we judge donor-IRRI relationships to be first class. How else could a centre raise almost US$12 million in special project funds for infrastructures rehabilitation?
IRRI's excellent external relationships are a great source of intellectual, financial, and institutional support. Each year the Institute increases its numbers of cordial, productive relationships with an ever larger number of institutions in both developing and industrial countries. These relationships are dynamic. They are regularly reviewed and revised as befits the changing circumstances of the principals. Increasingly they are, in fact, working partnerships.
IRRI has recently established an open on-going dialogue with NGOs, a development we applaud. It also continues to deepen its relationships with increasing number of advanced scientific institutions world wide. As has been the case from the onset, IRRI enjoys the earned respect and support of a broad base of committed donors now numbering 26.
In sum, the Institute's relationships with external institutions may be thought of thus: IRRI needs them, they need IRRI, and the world of rice producers and consumers needs them both.
The prime mover in the successful transformation made in IRRI's organization and management over the last four years is its Director General. During this same period its Board of Trustees, under the able leadership of its Chair, has vastly improved the effectiveness with which it performs its governance and leadership functions.
Through the teamwork of the DG, the Board, and the staff, IRRI has successfully developed and implemented its new method of managing its research. Because this is the most far-reaching development in IRRI's organizational structure, an entire chapter (Chapter 4) is devoted to this topic.
IRRI's planning and review processes, some of them newly adopted (e.g. peer reviews) are thorough and ongoing. We see in the peer reviews a help in strengthening disciplinary scientific excellence. With respect to planning and review exercises in general, however, we urge IRRI and the commissioners of the reviews to guard against excesses. Because many of them are externally induced, the numbers, timing, and content of these exercises are not under IRRI's control. We regard it as essential that every reasonable effort be made by both external entities and by IRRI to lighten the load on staff in this area.
Because IRRI is such an open, externally oriented Centre, its institutional relations are cordial, extensive and productive. We enthusiastically support the joint move by NARS and IRRI to make these relationships genuine partnerships. We congratulate IRRI for opening what promises to be an ongoing dialogue with NGOs and we regard the deepening relationships with advanced scientific institutions worldwide as critical to the forward march of science at IRRI.
In sum, we are impressed with IRRI's achievements over the last five years in improving the Institute's organization and management. This new foundation is likely to serve IRRI well in the years ahead.
