2.1 Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD)
2.2 Food Consumption and Nutrition Division (FCND)
2.3 Markets and Structural Studies Division (MSSD)
2.4 Trade and Macroeconomics Division (TMD)
2.5 Outreach Division (OD)
2.6 The 2020 Vision Initiative
IFPRI divides its research activity into three programme groups - multi-country programmes (MPs), global research programmes (GRPs), and synthesis activities (SYNs). The themes for the latter have been identified. These are Non-farm Rural Development (SYN1), on which work has already begun, and Strategies for Poverty Alleviation (SYN2).
The four research divisions are involved in eleven MPs and six GRPs with titles as indicated in Table 2.1. A short description of each is provided in Appendix IV. Table 2.1 also indicates the main divisional responsibilities for programmes (marked by an X) and other division participation (marked by a line) in each programme. All of the programmes except MP7 involve inputs from two or more divisions.
In addition to the GRPs under the responsibility of the research divisions, one is directly under the DG, 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the Environment (GRP4); it involves all the other divisions and is a synthesizing activity that brings together work from all the research programmes with other key information from around the world, providing an overall vehicle through which the relevance and usefulness of IFPRI work can be tested with outside clients. Further discussion on 2020 is provided in Section 2.6.
IFPRI recently completed a thorough Internally Commissioned External Review (ICER) of its research methodology in all the MPs. IFPRI is to be commended on this activity and its choice of an outstanding Panel of nine independent experts. The EPMR Panel could not hope to equal this thorough, penetrating review of IFPRI research methodology.
The primary unanimous and positive findings and recommendations are that (a) IFPRI "has maintained or built commendable methodological strength in its traditional research areas, and is now adding to that strength by moving into new areas"; (b) the ICER Panel encourages IFPRI's movement "toward greater diversification of research methods and toward deeper integration of its research methods with more professionalized outreach methods"; and (c) the Panel recommends continued pursuit of the complementary goals of professionalization of communication methods and integration of outreach methods with research.
The following sections discuss each of the divisions' rationale, mix and balance of programmes and projects, and outputs; relevance to and coherence with IFPRI's overall mandate, mission, and focal areas; and their relation to the division's own subject matter. Cross-cutting issues related to such themes as priority setting, quality of research, relevance and impacts, and research environment (both internal and external), and the comparative advantage, efficiency, and the Institute's linkages are covered in Chapter 3.
Table 2.1: IFPRI's GRPs by Division
|
|
EPTD |
FCND |
MSSD |
TMD |
|
MPs |
|
|
X |
|
|
MP1 C Input Market Reform and Development |
|
| |
X |
| |
|
MP2 C Output Market Reform and Development |
|
| |
X |
| |
|
MP5 C Rural Financial Policies for Food Security of the Poor |
|
X |
| |
|
|
MP7 C Marketing, Institutional, and Infrastructure Policies for Agricultural Commercialization, Diversification, and Export Promotion |
|
|
X |
|
|
MP8 C Arresting Deforestation and Resource Degradation in the Forest Margins of the Humid Tropics: Policy, Technology, and Institutional Options |
X |
|
|
| |
|
MP10 C Water Resource Allocation: Productivity and Environmental Impacts |
X |
|
|
| |
|
MP11 C Property Rights and Collective Action in Natural Resource Management |
X |
| |
|
|
|
MP12 C Macroeconomic Policies, Rural Development, and the Environment |
| |
|
| |
X |
|
MP14 C Urban Challenges to Food and Nutrition Security |
|
X |
|
|
|
MP17 C Gender and Intrahousehold Aspects of Food Policy |
| |
X |
| |
| |
|
MP18 C Targeted Interventions to Reduce and Prevent Poverty |
|
X |
| |
| |
|
GRPs |
|
|
|
|
|
GRP1 C Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Policy (formerly MP4) |
X |
|
|
| |
|
GRP2 C Global and Regional Trade (formerly MP13) |
|
|
| |
X |
|
GRP3 C Priorities for Public Investment in Agriculture and Rural Areas, and Appropriate Institutional Arrangements |
|
|
X |
|
|
GRP4 C The 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment 1 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
GRP5 C Sustainable Development of Less-Favoured Lands (formerly MP9) |
X |
|
| |
|
|
GRP6 C Agricultural Strategies for Micronutrients (formerly MP19) |
|
X |
|
|
Legend:
X = primary responsibility
| = involvement by division
1 This GRP is located and managed in the DG's office
2.1.1 Overall Direction of the Division, 1992-1997
2.1.2 Links to Current IFPRI Priorities and Strategy
2.1.3 Outputs
2.1.4 Relevance of the Division's Work
In 1990 the EPMR strongly recommended that IFPRI create a division that would primarily focus on natural resource management and environmental issues. The Division was created in 1992 and combined some of the earlier work and staff from the production division with a new staff and a mandate to focus on environmental issues related to agriculture.
EPTD was initially staffed with researchers from IFPRI's old production division. Several of the original staff did not have appropriate skills to contribute to the new mandate of the Division. Several staff members left and new staff were located through international searches. Also, the Division inherited several projects that had to be finished before it could undertake its new initiatives, including a large multi-year project on the sources of growth in Indian agriculture, which occupied about one third of the Division's staff and had yet to produce many of its deliverables. The transition from one focus to another inevitably created some morale problems and took about three years to complete. The Division is now appropriately staffed with high-quality and in most cases experienced senior researchers, who appear to be focusing on priority issues.
When the Division was first established, the EPTD, through a strategic planning process that involved many collaborators, determined that it should focus its research on policies to increase food production for poor people in an environmentally sustainable manner. Rather than focus on a broad research programme on the environment, the EPTD examined the interface between agriculture and natural resources with the overriding goal of sustainable poverty alleviation. The 1992 Interim Review noted that EPTD "has made excellent progress in defining its research agenda in the vast and complex field of environmental policy."
EPTD is the second largest division in IFPRI measured by number of staff and level of funding. Its 1996 operating budget was approximately US $ 2,74 million, and its staff was 32. The total budget for the Division is currently US$ 3.69 million (US$ 1.02 million of unrestricted funds and US$ 2.66 million of project funds). The EPTD derives its restricted funding from 24 donors through 35 projects.
Starting in 1991 the following factors contributed to the development of EPTD's research agenda: several international consultations; extensive discussions with other CGIAR Centres; discussions with established research groups working on environmental policies, such as IIED, WRI, ODI, NRI (UK), CIRAD, the World Bank, and FAO; and the views of relevant national and international stakeholders which were canvassed in preparation for IFPRI's MTP. EPTD's research agenda is to (a) provide primarily expertise related to social science policy research, working in partnership with other researchers (both inside and outside the CGIAR), to facilitate an increase in sustainable food production for poor people; (b) give highest priority to understanding incentive problems for natural resource management at the household and community levels, and (c) focus on the development of conceptual approaches and methodologies that have general application to (a) and (b).
Application of this agenda and consideration of all the inputs from outside partners and stakeholders led to the current focus on "integration of policy research on environmental problems and agricultural production and technology issues to provide guidance on how to move towards more highly sustainable agricultural intensification in developing countries." Those concerned felt this mission to be more in line with the CGIAR's mandate and IFPRI's role in the CG than the more direct focus on natural resources and environmental issues recommended by the 1992 Interim Review. The main reasons for the divergence from the 1992 recommendation were that IFPRI took into account that (a) the CGIAR System was starting a separate forestry initiative; (b) the System had other activity in the water resources, fisheries, and sustainable agriculture areas; and (c) a considerable number of other major non-CGIAR research efforts were addressing environmental and natural resources issues in isolation from agriculture, whereas few were looking at the linkages between agriculture and environmental and natural resources issues (some exceptions were early work in watershed management). The EPMR Panel believes that IFPRI's rationale is sound and the focus is proper.
IFPRI has chosen five research focal areas in its current MTP. Two of these - promoting sustainable intensification of agricultural production among smallholders, and strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of agricultural research and technology - provide the main focus for EPTD activity. Thus, the EPTD includes research work on Sustainable Development of Less-Favoured Lands (GRP5), Arresting Deforestation and Natural Resource Degradation (MP8), Water Resource Allocation in Relation to Agriculture (MP10), and Property Rights and Collective Action (MP11). Production focal areas in the Division include the Assessment of Agricultural Research, Investment and Policy Options, and Agricultural Genetic Resources Policies (GRP1). In addition, the Division has been designated to lead the development of a new synthesis activity, Non-farm Rural Development (SYN1). The five programmes are discussed in more detail in Appendix VI. EPTD also participates in a number of joint activities and initiatives, as indicated in Table 2.1.
Strong collaborative links with national researchers and institutions in developing countries define the working style of EPTD. One of the best examples is the Arresting Deforestation (MP-8) set of activities in Brazil, where the partner institution EMBRAPA has indicated that the collaboration and the benefit are sufficiently strong to justify the contribution of funds for the research, as well as office space, vehicles, and administrative support at the Amazon field site.
The EPTD has produced 15 books, 5 research reports, 191 journal articles, and 160 other published works, and a large body of grey literature during the review period. In addition, numerous publications are in the pipeline. Some of the key outputs include work on the following:
· Community survey methods for collecting participatory recall information as well as cross-sectional data for analysing the impact of property rights and other policy, institutional, and technological factors on natural resource management at the plot, household, and community levels, and for testing induced-innovation hypotheses.· Bio-economic modelling methods for analysing the economic and environmental consequences of alternative development pathways at the community level.
· Methods for combining GIS data with economic models for ex post and ex ante evaluation of agricultural research.
· Models of river basin systems for analysing the efficiency and environmental consequences of alternative water management policies.
The Division's work covers the main issues related to its chosen focus natural resources and environmental issues in relation to sustainable agricultural development. The Panel concludes, on the basis of information available, discussions with stakeholders and with colleagues from other institutions, and its own experience, that the outputs from the EPTD, both methodological and empirical findings, are relevant to partners, clients, and the research community at large. For example, EPTD work on household analysis (e.g., from MP8 and old MP9) provides other researchers with a wealth of information on methodologies, avoiding problems in survey work, and the decision-making characteristics of and natural resources management processes associated with relatively poor rural households in tropical regions. This work resulted in a book, and numerous published articles in scholarly journals have clearly established EPTD researchers as being on the forefront of research related to forest margins, fragile lands strategies, and land degradation issues.
The Stripe Study Panel on Policy Research (see Chapter 1) suggested specifically that the IFPRI EPMR review opportunities for further work on natural resources and environmental issues related to agriculture. These issues included understanding interactions among technologies and policies in areas where sustainability of production is at risk; emerging long-term transnational issues such as management of common water resources, management of common fisheries resources, biodiversity, and property rights in relation to global conventions; and intellectual property rights in relation to agriculture. The EPMR Panel concludes that EPTD is addressing the first area adequately (although research could be expanded if more resources were made available). Within the second area, common water management issues, IFPRI's involvement extends to water resources and common property resource management, both through MP10 and through the SWIs on water and property rights and collective action.
The Panel suggests that more work in the water resource area is justified and should be undertaken by IFPRI. IFPRI has not focused resources on transnational issues related to common water management, nor has it done work related to common fisheries management, primarily for the reasons stated earlier. The Panel accepts IFPRI's decisions not to become actively involved in these areas, given the priorities it has set for use of its limited resources, the work underway at ICLARM, and the SWI on water led by IIMI. On the other hand, if new resources were to become available for work in the area of policies for transnational water management related to agricultural development and intensification, IFPRI would be well placed to participate in such work.
The Panel recommends that:
notwithstanding the present difficulties in obtaining funding for work on water resources, IFPRI should redouble its efforts in raising such funds since it is an area identified as a priority by the CGIAR.
With regard to the Stripe Study Panel's recommendation to consider work related to IPR and biodiversity, EPTD is the lead division in the joint activity with IPGRI. IFPRI's work on this subject has lagged because of lack of funding. However, EPTD is starting activity in this area in 1999 and intends to focus broadly on issues related to IPR policy through its GRP1. IFPRI should proceed with full awareness of IPGRI's activities and should also take into account the recommendations of the TAC Panel on Proprietary Science and Technology, which will be reporting to the CGIAR in May of 1998.
2.2.1 Introduction
2.2.2 Current Research
2.2.3 Relevance of Research Topics
2.2.4 Methodologies and Disciplines
2.2.5 Comparative Advantage of FCND
2.2.6 Concluding Comments
The Food Consumption and Nutrition Division (FCND) is the largest division in IFPRI. Its mission is to generate and disseminate information that will be used by decision-makers to design and implement policies and programmes that help poor individuals obtain access to food and use that food for good nutrition. The focus of the Division is consumption as opposed to production, and the Division considers the individual as well as the household and the community. Nutritional status is considered as an ultimate indicator since food security is necessary but not sufficient for adequate nutritional status. This Division is therefore in the best position within IFPRI to determine the effects of food policies on the alleviation of hunger.
FCND has had a distinguished evolution, with no major changes of course. Its growth has been incremental as it has progressively built on previous work. The 1992 Interim External Review noted that the Division's performance was excellent at the time of the 1990 review and had remained so. Previous major areas of research included subsidies, commercialization, seasonality, nutrition and productivity, and dietary energy stress. The new research priorities defined at the time of the 1992 review included the performance of labour and credit markets; intrahousehold inequalities and the position of women; micronutrient deficiencies and their linkage to health; urban malnutrition and specific forms of intervention; approaches for monitoring food security and nutrition; and analysis of the design and implementation of projects such as food distribution, famine relief, and labour-intensive public work.
The current emphasis of the Division is the access of individuals to food and its impact on nutrition, although access is the primary emphasis. Its research attempts to identify constraints to access of food and nutrients and to other nutrition inputs such as care, as well as the means to alleviate them. The current programmes are Financial Policies for Food Security of the Poor (MP5); Urban Challenges to Food Security and Nutrition (MP14); Gender and Intrahousehold Aspects of Food Policy (MP17); Targeted Policies and Programmes for Poverty Prevention and Reduction (MP18, previously called Safety Nets for Food Security); and Agricultural Strategies to Overcome Micronutrient Malnutrition (GRP6).
The current portfolio has evolved from several lines of work indicated by those MPs that have come to an end during the period under review, including Famine in Africa (MP15); Food and Nutrition Monitoring (MP16); Labour Markets (MP6); and Non-food Inputs into Good Nutrition (MP20). These MPs have been ended either because major conclusions have been reached, as in MP15, the case studies were completed or the components have been incorporated into other MPs, as with MP6, MP16 and MP20.
The rationales for current topics include the importance of credit and savings facilities available to poor people in making the difference between grinding poverty and an economically secure life; the growing importance of urban food insecurity and malnutrition as urbanization increases, and the recent evidence of links between early malnutrition and prevalent urban chronic diseases in later life; the sometimes false assumption implicit in the unitary model of the household that all resources are pooled within a household, which limits policy measures that target the least-well-off individuals instead of households; well-targeted interventions are required to concentrate resources on the most food-insecure groups to balance the detrimental effects that interventions designed to promote general economic growth can have on vulnerable populations; the importance of micronutrients in the prevention of morbidity, and the need to increase the availability and access to micronutrients of poor people who rely heavily on staple crops, as opposed to the international emphasis on increasing only the availability of calories that has persisted for the past two decades.
The 1998 budgets of the MPs varies considerably: Micronutrients US$ 412,000; Rural Finance US$ 589,000; Urban nutrition US$ 589,000; Gender and Intrahousehold US$ 1,335 million;
Targeted Interventions US$ 1,708 million. The range partly reflects the extent of work required to answer the research questions posed within each MP and also reflects the stage in the life cycle of the MP, for example, MPs 17 and 18 are in mid-cycle with most of the field work activity currently taking place. In general, the Division has been successful in obtaining funding, in part because of its particular niche in food security and nutrition. The exception is the micronutrient project.
The mandate of the CGIAR is to alleviate poverty, improve food security and nutrition, protect fragile natural resources, and promote sustainable agriculture. FCND activities are relevant to the first two areas, which are closely but not exclusively interlinked. Financial Policies for Food Security of the Poor (MP5) focuses on the constraints of credit and savings for the security of the poor. Urban Challenges to Food Security and Nutrition (MP14) focuses on populations in intense poverty and food insecurity. The appropriateness of this topic in the research agenda of a CGIAR institution has been contested. However, urbanisation is an important topic in view of the increasing proportion of populations that is urban, due in large part to rural-urban migration, which links urban poverty and rural conditions. Little policy research has been conducted on urban poverty, food security, and nutrition despite the increasing proportions of the poor and undernourished that live in urban areas. Gender and Intrahousehold Aspects of Food Policy (MP17) identifies patterns of inequality at the level of individuals and is, therefore, clearly relevant in providing information for the targeting of programmes to alleviate poverty and food insecurity, and for understanding how inequalities can stifle economic growth and impede economic efficiency. Targeted Policies and Programmes for Poverty Prevention and Reduction (MP18) is clearly within the remit of cost-effective poverty alleviation. Agricultural Strategies to Overcome Micronutrient Malnutrition (GRP6) is the only programme that includes and is primarily focused on crop production. The relevance of this programme for FCND has been questioned in light of the failures of past efforts in plant breeding intended to improve protein availability and quality, and on the grounds that other plant constituents limit the biological availability of the micronutrients. The relationship of crop production to poverty alleviation is not so immediately clear, as its relationship to food security and improved nutrition will depend on yield and hence the potential economic viability of the cultivars, and also on the extent to which the nutrients are absorbed when consumed. However, initial results are promising. For example, cultivars with high iron and zinc content have higher yields on mineral-poor soils, and in animal studies the percent nutrient absorption is equivalent to that from current cultivars.
The Division's publication output during the review period has included important works on famine, rural finance, gender issues, and micronutrients. These have had a wide impact and are highly regarded in the academic and development communities. The work on indicators for food and nutrition monitoring proved disappointing in its outcome because of inadequate design and management, but many lessons have been learnt from the experience and are documented in a discussion paper. Total publication output over the period under review has been eight research reports, two food policy reviews and synopses, three books (one on famines, is also due for publication in 1998), eight occasional papers, four food policy reports, six food policy statements, two working papers, 67 reprints from academic journals and 41 discussion papers. The vast majority of publications are aimed at the academic community.
A major feature of the Division, along with EPTD and in contrast to other divisions, is the collection of primary data, both quantitative and qualitative. Data sets are available in principle for use outside IFPRI and are therefore an important international public good. They can also be used internally to investigate changes in poverty and food security, comparing them with new surveys of the same sites. Data collection and analysis have provided methodological lessons, which have been disseminated in publications such as the econometric manual (Microcomputers in Policy Research Working Paper Series 2) in addition to publications on policy.
FCND could be working on a variety of important food security and nutrition issues, and new issues will be selected in the near future when current MPs come to an end. MP5 is due to end in 1999. The Division is considering new MPs to begin during or close to the year 2000. Recent issues adopted are the roles of health and care in nutrition, as well as micronutrients. Other issues under consideration are food aid, water, HIV implications, food safety, social capital, conflict and food security, nutrition and productivity, institutions that improve nutrition, comparative malnutrition rates in Asia and Africa, and methods of calculating the extent of food insecurity. The Panel is satisfied that the process of selection of topics is sound. It involves extensive internal and external consultation about the importance of issues raised and examination of their consistency with the mandate, their innovativeness, and IFPRI's comparative advantage in addressing the topic.
IFPRI, including FCND, has been criticized in the past for not having any programmes that deal with the underlying political determinants of poverty. The lack of political studies could be related to the ideological perspective of IFPRI personnel, or possibly to deliberate restraint. The lack of work on political and institutional barriers to effective policy implementation was highlighted in the Internally Commissioned External Review (ICER) report. However, this deficiency is recognized internally, and efforts to address it have begun. For example, a political scientist has been hired as a long-term consultant to undertake a policy study in Egypt, and focus has been put on the institutional constraints in the South African works projects. In addition, the February 1998 FCND Discussion Paper No. 41, by Dan Maxwell, is on the topic of The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.
To carry out consumption studies, the Division uses a combination of two methodologies: cross-sectional multivariate methods familiar to economists and useful to indicate links between variables; and randomized sampling techniques that now take into account power calculations to compare groups over time or with and without interventions, to determine the impact of the intervention studied. They include both questionnaires and food and physiological measurements. Techniques from a variety of disciplines are necessary, and FCND does possess the greatest mix of disciplines within IFPRI, although the number of non-economists is still limited.
A respected interdisciplinary team reviewed the validity of methods in the ICER report, and found very few serious questions about the use of methodology in general, especially within the discipline of economics. The team suggested several improvements within the specific MPs; many of these have been implemented by the Division. The reviewers praised the creative approach to developing methods exhibited in some MPs and suggested some improvements of nutrition and other methodologies.
Although IFPRI studies have become more focused on individuals within households and therefore deal more closely with behavioural issues as well as with the effects of consumption on nutrition, there are surprisingly few non-economists within the organization (see Chapter 3.4.1). Several of the non-economists are on the staff of the FCND. There is recognition within IFPRI that these individuals bring a different perspective to the Institute's studies, especially in relation to improved survey design and interpretation; inadequate design has at times led to concerns regarding conclusions about the impact of policies or programmes on nutrition. It is claimed that economists understand well basic nutritional concepts, but that they are less familiar with the research designs required to determine statistical differences between groups, as well as the distinctions between evaluations of impact and process (i.e., other indicators of intermediary outcomes). The non-economists' skills in these areas have been especially appreciated within IFPRI.
Maintaining this non-economist expertise within FCND has been problematic in the past, the lack of critical mass leading to feelings of isolation and disaffection among them (see Section 3.4.2). The head of FCND is consciously attempting to attain a better balance of disciplines through additional appointments, long-term Visiting Researchers and Rockefeller Fellows. For example, IFPRI and the UN Sub Committee on Nutrition (SCN) and have agreed to maintain a joint position for a nutritionist to work on the SCN 4th World Food Situation document for 1999, which will benefit IFPRI through increased nutrition inputs and working links with the international nutrition network. Other means of interdisciplinary cross-fertilization are through academic collaborators on specific projects, including sociologists, medical anthropologists, nutritionists and legal specialists.
IFPRI has a pure mandate for food policy research and outreach, placing it at an advantage in relation to universities, which are relatively constrained by teaching demands and more restricted expertise in the wide variety of food policy issues addressed by IFPRI, which cross-fertilizes its research. IFPRI has built up a large collection of data sets designed within the organization which can be used for intercountry or intertemporal comparisons. It may be at a self-imposed or financially-imposed disadvantage compared with universities in requiring large amounts of funding, which may restrict political economic enquiries. It has an advantage over financing institutions such as the World Bank because it is free from justifying lending policies. Institutions comparable to IFPRI are other development policy institutes such as Overseas Development Institute in the United Kingdom, but these have broader mandates less focused on food.
The Panel is gratified to confirm that FCND continues to have a distinguished record on food policy issues related to poverty, consumption and nutrition; that its work is widely recognized as being both of high quality and high outcome; and that it is responding to issues raised by external reviewers and commentators, such as interdisciplinary mix, methodologies, and topics of research.
2.3.1 Origin, Mission and Mandate
2.3.2 The Direction of MSSD's Work
2.3.3 Linkages with Other Divisions and Other CG Centres
2.3.4 Output
2.3.5 Dissemination of Results
2.3.6 Assessment
IFPRI's Market and Structural Studies Division was established in 1991, after the 1990 EPMR recommended to split the former production policy division into MSSD and EPTD. The underlying logic had its foundation in the observation that many processing activities were taking place between the producer and the final consumer, and that these activities had perhaps even more impact than agricultural production itself in the final cost of food. Another consideration was that institutional and structural arrangements shaping the markets were crucial in determining the efficiency of the whole system (hence the name of the Division),
The general direction of the Division's work shows why it is essential to the IFPRI general programme: whereas trade liberalization (both externally, in international markets, and internally, in national or regional markets) has been advocated as the universal remedy for any difficulties in matching supply and demand, the thrust of the Division's activities is to identify market failures and design institutions likely to avoid them. In so doing, the Division not only helps to create the conditions necessary for markets to function smoothly and efficiently, conditions that are not necessarily met naturally - it also indicates the places where compensations are needed to prevent the losers from being sacrificed to the general interest. Very often, the losers are also the poor, so this exercise falls directly within the mandate of the Institution.
The Division's method relies primarily on surveys and case studies, a sound approach, the main merit of which is that it provides fresh data and direct grassroot contacts. It produces many outstanding results and some excellent reports. Among the results, one of particular importance is the conclusion that output market reforms have not met expectations in Africa, primarily because not enough care has been devoted to finance and infrastructure. The conclusion that market reform can lead to an over-exploitation and exhaustion of soils may also be important, and addressing it should be given priority in rural areas institutional design, particularly in regions such as the Sahel. Also worth mentioning is the demonstration of the importance of sequencing in setting up reforms: input markets must be created before the liberalization of output markets - an idea that may not be shared everywhere, and is yet of the utmost importance for the very success of liberalization. The likely consequences of diversification are already in the research agenda: diversification does not only affect crop production, but the marketing system as well, by creating economies of scale and new activities.
The Division is leader in four programmes out of 24 (Input Market Reform, Output Market Reform, Policies for Agricultural Commercialisation, and Priorities for Public Investment), with all other divisions participating in at least one of them. The Division participates in seven other programmes; the Division's links with the rest of IFPRI are therefore solid.
Given the Division mandate, numerous links with other CGIAR activities would not be expected, since few other CGIAR institutes are dealing with the particular questions the Division is investigating. Nonetheless, the Division's relationship with ILRI is now expanding, especially in light of the increased importance of milk and feed trade. The Division has also made contacts with ICLARM, with a common project on fisheries in developing countries. With CIAT it is involved in a study on starch in agricultural processing and other activities. As these examples indicate, the particular expertise of this Division is important to the CGIAR as a whole.
Between 1993 and 1998, the Division produced roughly 10 journal articles or book chapters, 8 research or donor reports, 14 seminar and refereed discussion papers, two books being processed for publication and 8 other documents of scientific interest annually, a fairly good record by quantitative measure for a group of 15 persons, including assistants; the output may be considered normal for an excellent research centre. The academic quality is indicated by the number of articles published, as they are usually submitted to in-depth evaluation by referees.
In addition to its primary activities, the Division leads important outreach operations to disseminate its findings. For example, the organization of a course on policy analysis for about 40 Ministry of Agriculture staff members in Vietnam was successful because the course was in full continuity with a research project the participants considered important. This success should be set against other IFPRI outreach activities which were not closely tied to activities in the research divisions.
The Division made a major contribution to the IFPRI data portfolio, although not in a systematic way, creating the challenge of making efficient institutional use of these data (this challenge is not created only by this Division).
The activities of the MSSD are worthy of praise, and the Division is clearly on the right track. The only weakness worth mentioning here, is in the Division's methodology as opposed to the substance of its studies. Surveys and direct field observation are obviously the primary research methodologies, and just inferring hypotheses from the mere inspection of data (or even from the sophisticated analysis) is not sufficient for establishing valid results. A synthesis is often necessary just as in chemistry a synthesis brings the proof that an analysis is complete. In some cases, the Panel's impression was that, although synthesis of data was certainly not excluded from the activities of the Division, it could have proved productive to place more importance on it. In particular, original models explaining poor market integration over geographic space, such as was observed, for instance, in Vietnam or in Egypt by the Division, or in other locations by various authors, are badly needed. Similarly, sectoral models of food processing industries should be systematically explored, in view of the growing importance of urbanisation, which increases the complexity of the channels between producers and consumers. The models should have a dynamic component and should often include financial and risk considerations (particularly in view of its findings regarding those constraints in Africa), thereby being suitable not only for ad hoc studies, but also as inputs for macro models, such as those developed by the Trade and Macroeconomic Division.
In recent years, MSSD has increasingly been working and publishing on international trade policy aspects. Given its mandate, it is difficult to avoid doing so. Indeed, the Panel encourages MSSD to continue do so.
Indeed, the Panel would push the logic to other divisions in IFPRI as well and recommends that:
In designing its research every division within IFPRI should bear in mind that developing countries now have increasingly open economies, and that the planned research should take into full account the country's interactions with the rest of the world.
Another type of study the Division should consider adding to its research portfolio is in the field of political science: how are decisions about food policy made at government or regional levels. A better understanding of decision processes would likely make the application of the Division's findings easier and their impact deeper. Such research could even help IFPRI to avoid inappropriate outreach policy. However, care must be taken to connect the political science strongly to the mainstream of the Division's work. In addition, although the sociology of organizations is a science with universally accepted principles, IFPRI staff must be aware that its applicability to any particular situation is subject to quickly evolving contingencies, thus making findings in this domain difficult to generalize.
2.4.1 Background
2.4.2 The General Equilibrium Approach to the Analysis of the Agricultural Sector
2.4.3 Trade
2.4.4 Output
2.4.5 Conclusion
The Trade and Macroeconomics Division (TMD) is the smallest in IFPRI, with 9 percent of the budget and 8 percent of senior-scientist years. Its portfolio consists of only one MP (MP12: Macroeconomic Policies, Rural Development, and the Environment), and one GRP (GRP2: Global and Regional Trade). Both titles are representative of the kind of work done in the Division. In addition, the Division provides methodological support for work under the MPs and the GRPs led by other divisions.
During the 1980s the Division's predecessor (International Trade and Food Security Program) pioneered the research leading to the policy debate that centred on the role of trade and macroeconomic policy distortions in shaping the development of the agricultural sector; the research culminated in the World Bank-sponsored study led by Krueger, Schiff and Valdes. The current write up of the MP in the Medium-Term Plan still has in it a whiff of that earlier work, a point the ICER Panel has also remarked upon. However, in the Division's presentation to this Panel, and in the discussions during the December 1997 Internal Programme Review, it became clear that there had been an evolution away from the concerns that motivate the earlier body of work. The Division has begun work that looks at economy-environment interactions jointly with EPTD, and in conjunction with FCND, at farm households that make simultaneous production and consumption decisions.
Since the current Division Director took charge in 1994, the unifying theme for TMD has primarily been its research methodology as opposed to its subject matter. Specifically, the Division now has considerable expertise in the modelling technique known as the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE), a powerful tool for the analysis of economy-wide changes. The Division Director, an economist widely respected in the field, not only contributes directly to the work in the Division, but is also able to draw young, high-calibre researchers to the Institute.
The primary problem with the CGE methodology is its demanding data requirements. Consequently, it may seem to be an inappropriate technology for poorer countries, which form the core of IFPRI's natural constituency. The Division is well aware of this problem and has tackled head-on the methodological problem of estimating "a comprehensive and consistent data set using scattered and often inconsistent data from input-output accounts, national income and product accounts, international trade accounts, government expenditure and revenue accounts, agricultural surveys, manufacturing surveys, and household surveys."1
1 "Trade and Macroeconomics Division: Accomplishments in 1997 and Plans for 1998", Paper presented in the Internal Programme Review, International Food Policy Research Institute, December 1997.
Making the most efficient use of the small amount of information available, it has called on highly advanced econometric techniques, which are being applied to selected southern African countries, but which can subsequently be replicated in other countries. The effectiveness and appropriateness of these techniques remain to be tested. The Panel merely notes that use of advanced techniques to resolve the specific problems of the poorer countries falls squarely within the mandates of the CGIAR Centres.
A similar and more valid complaint is that such high-tech models and techniques will increase the dependence of the in-country researchers on continued work by or collaboration with IFPRI, since many of them will not be able to keep up with these frontier techniques. In this respect, TMD has run workshops on economy-wide modelling in El Salvador, Honduras, Egypt, Morocco and Zimbabwe. TMD has pending proposals jointly with the Outreach Division, to do a mix of research and capacity building in Malawi, Tanzania and Morocco, and plans to submit proposals for South Africa and Botswana.
Perhaps the more fundamental objection to the use of CGE models in the context of developing countries is the static, single-period nature of these models, which renders them somewhat impotent in addressing the more serious growth and development issues. Nevertheless, the Division has put significant effort into inferring the influence of various sector-based growth strategies on growth and equity in The Philippines. The sequential method used in this exercise sidesteps rather than resolves the basic objection against the CGE model. For the time being the policy community should be satisfied with such a stratagem, until the state of the art in this area advances further.
The TMD's decision to use a single research tool for its various efforts in macroeconomic analysis is open to criticism. The Panel rejects such a criticism. From the beginning, IFPRI has always (and in the Panel's view rightly) been concerned with the role of agriculture in an economy-wide framework. In the past, it had to be both eclectic and opportunistic in its use of research tools, largely because CGE either was not available or else was considered too esoteric and experimental for an applied centre such as IFPRI. Now that this tool, which is precisely tailored to the need of economy-wide studies, has become more commonplace, there is less reason for TMD to return to its previous opportunistic methods.
Some commentators have expressed concern that, in its concentration on the CGE technique, TMD has neglected working strictly on trade issues. It is now doing a considerable amount of work (perhaps even too much) on regional trade integration, involving a large number of country groupings. It has been suggested that perhaps it could do more on global trade issues, particularly as the WTO Agreement on Agriculture is to be the subject of negotiations again in a few year's time. However, work on many of these trade issues is also being done in other institutions, notably WTO, UNCTAD, and the World Bank, as well as universities in advanced countries.
While the global impact of multilateral trading arrangements is studied by many organizations, IFPRI may wish to consider an inadequately filled niche. Many countries are uncertain of the negotiating position they should take on various agricultural issues discussed in the international arena. This gap in knowledge is perhaps most seriously felt in the Ministries of Agriculture, which are the most visible stakeholders of IFPRI (and CGIAR).
Work on trade in IFPRI is done not only in TMD, but also in many other divisions. As IFPRI conducts research in many countries, most of which are small, open economies, trade issues must always be given consideration, if not placed at the forefront. Other divisions have therefore undertaken trade-related work - which is as it should be.
Strangely enough, there is no work being done in the Division on the long-term evolution of global food trade, which IFPRI does address through the 2020 Program. The model developed as part of that programme (the Impact model), is quite effective in tracing the effects of policy and exogenous changes on the world food markets. Since the researcher leading that modelling exercise happens to be located in EPTD, the model has the attractive feature of carefully specifying the influence of technology change and resource deterioration. However, it is a partial-equilibrium model1 and thus does not have a rigorously specified feedback loop through the income changes brought by the policy and exogenous changes. Without that feedback loop, analysis of Impact on poverty is impossible. To specify this loop rigorously, a CGE model is necessary. The Panel hopes that IFPRI will successfully merge the virtues of the Impact model and the general-equilibrium approach, and thereby make an even more significant contribution to the analysis of the global food system.
1 A partial equilibrium model examines demand and supply conditions and how they affect prices for a single or several markets, ignoring the impacts to and from the rest of the economy. A general equilibrium model, by contrast, would examine all markets in the economy simultaneously.
The output of the Division appears to be extensive, although at the moment it consists of large amounts of grey literature. Between 1992 and 1997, the Division published only three IFPRI Research Reports, the last one in 1995. The last book published using the Division's work was in 1993. This gap in publication appears to be a lagged reflection of the long period between the departure of the previous Director in 1990 and the arrival of the current Director in 1993. However, the Panel has been informed that publications from this Division should pick up in 1998, as the new projects launched since the arrival of the new Division Director are coming to an end.
Given that the Division is using advanced techniques in its work, it is surprising that there has not been any publication in the elite journals of the developed countries. Instead, articles have appeared frequently in the regional journals and those in developing countries. This was a stated distribution policy of the Division, and although it may be of some help to researchers in the developing countries, frequent visits from the Division's staff to present papers and provide training to the countries' economists who are working on food and agriculture would be more helpful. Outside of Latin America, visits to only four countries were reported in the 1997 Internal Program Review document. It is possible that funding availability may have limited a wider coverage.
It is the Panel's impression that in this area, IFPRI has chosen its niche well. TMD's analytical work that clearly places agriculture in an economy-wide context is crucial to the Institute. The relative size of the TMD is appropriate: more work can always be done on trade and macroeconomics, but other divisions can make similar claims. The Division's choice of work on trade takes into account work being done elsewhere. If the trade part of the Division's work lacks a sense of coherence, it is because IFPRI has to pick and choose its niche among many actors, and it is only a small actor.
The main improvement needed from this Division is an increase of published output to reflect the acceleration of the work since the current Division Director took over at the end of 1993.
2.5.1 Programmes - An Overview
2.5.2 Panel Assessment of IFPRI Outreach: Suggestions and Recommendations
The Outreach Division (OD) was established in 1992. It currently is in a state of flux and redefinition, with an ongoing search for a new director for the Division. A new head of the information programme within it has been hired, but is not yet on board. The director of the country programmes is leaving IFPRI and a replacement has yet to be named. A full time position on impact evaluation also has been created, but is yet to be filled.
The OD is one of the conduits through which the research and capacity building outputs of IFPRI flow towards eventual impact on the policy process, policy change, and policy capacity in developing countries. As such, the question of generating impact is a key one here, as it is in the case of the research divisions. Impacts are discussed in chapter 3, in terms of cross cutting issues related to measurement and the evidence on IFPRI's impacts that exists to date.
The OD has the following four broad objectives, all in a developing country context:
· to provide relevant information to policymakers;· to facilitate improvements in two-way communication between researchers, policy analysts, policymakers, and government officials;
· to strengthen capacity for food, agriculture, and natural resources policy research, analysis and implementation; and
· to assure a high degree of relevance of IFPRI's research.
In addition, the OD also has as its mission to further the awareness of IFPRI and its work through its activities in public awareness and media relations.
After the most recent consolidation and shifting around of programmes, the OD has ended up with six programmes, including: information, training and capacity-building; country programmes; regional networks; policy seminars; and impact assessment. Most of the programmes primarily involve institute wide activities (e.g., networks and country programmes, training and seminars, library) or service functions to the research divisions (e.g., publications, specific training activity support, specific seminars and workshop support). All except the library are oriented almost exclusively toward external clients.
Information Programme
For the outcomes of IFPRI research to have impact, the results must become part of the intellectual equipment and knowledge base of potential users in the developing countries, and of the international and bilateral agencies that support development. The single most important vehicle IFPRI uses to ensure its message gets in the hands of its constituents is the Information Programme. In addition to providing policy information to its users, IFPRI's Information Programme also has the objectives of (1) providing access to methodologies for use by developing-country researchers both directly in research and in training, and (2) communicating information about the Institute and its work to broader audiences, including the media in developing and developed countries, important to its success.
Publications: In 1997, IFPRI sent out nearly 21,000 copies of publications in response to some 5,500 orders. Total number of publications during 1997 is down from 1996. Plans call for an increase in publications during 1998, including five research reports and three books that will be completed during the year. An additional 10 research report manuscripts are expected in 1998. In 1997, some 56 division discussion papers were produced during 1997.
Internet: IFPRI presence on the World Wide Web continues to grow, with the addition of texts of many shorter publications in addition to general information on IFPRI, its publications, and staff biographies. Individual divisions have begun to develop their own detailed sites on the Web; and a major effort is underway to translate web offerings into French and Spanish.
Public awareness and media relations: IFPRI continues to expand its interactions with news media. The visibility of IFPRI was increased substantially through the 2020 exercise. Media training was held for a number of senior level researchers to help enhance their interview skills. All major wire services carried stories about IFPRI's work in 1997, and there is an increase in the number of stories appearing in developing country media outlets.
Library: The library continues to evaluate the needs of research staff. A full-time technical services librarian was added during 1997 to replace a part-time position. Interlibrary loan requests have continued to expand rapidly, which makes it difficult for the staff to keep up with requests.
Training and Capacity Strengthening Programme
The overall objective of IFPRI's work in training and conferences is to strengthen the capacity of developing-country counterparts to conduct food, agriculture, and natural resources policy analysis and to enhance the capacity of developing country institutions to provide training in policy analysis on a continuing basis. This is accomplished through training programmes based in strong national institutions in developing countries; through a small number of global and regional IFPRI training courses in areas where the Institute has special expertise; through participation of individuals from developing countries in IFPRI research activities in ways integrated with their professional advancement; and through seminars, workshops, and conferences for experts and participants from both developed and developing countries.
IFPRI is involved in long term institutional and research capacity strengthening in such countries as Malawi, Ghana, and Mozambique, and through regional groups in Latin America and South Asia. It also is involved in short-term training courses, such as the recent one developed jointly with the University of Maryland on food, agriculture, and natural resources policy analysis. This course involved nine faculty members from the University of Maryland and ten staff members from IFPRI. Ten policy advisors, researchers, and instructors from Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda were participants. Next year a similar course is planned that would focus on food security in drought-prone environments.
From 1993 through 1997, some 449 participants were trained in IFPRI sponsored and organized courses. About two-thirds of the participants were from developing country governments, with the rest coming from developing-country academic institutions, NGOs and other organizations. About 30 percent of the participants were women. By the year 2000, the training team hopes to double the number of people trained.
IFPRI supports graduate student research, both through its country projects and through the provision of data sets for graduate student research (as suggested in the Policy Stripe Study).
Some graduate students are hosted at IFPRI headquarters. IFPRI also has a Visiting Research Fellow Programme. In 1997, there were three participants in each of these programmes. By the year 2000, IFPRI training staff hope to more than double the visiting researchers to IFPRI and the number of graduate students from developing countries at IFPRI.
Training activities are evaluated by the participants. However, IFPRI has not yet developed a systematic process for outside evaluation of its training activities, as recommended in the Stripe Study of Policy Research in the CGIAR System.
Policy Seminar Programme
As part of its strategy of disseminating policy research to a wide audience through the spoken word, the Policy Seminars Programme facilitates exchange of information on institute-wide thematic concerns locally, regionally, and globally. Seminars, workshops, and conferences bring together collaborators, policymakers, and IFPRI research staff to discuss research design, methodologies, and findings.
16 seminars were held in 1997, compared to 11 in 1996. The seminars focused on topics that would be of interest to a broad audience. In 1998 IFPRI will begin to host 2020 seminars as part of its seminar series. From 1992-1996, the programme sponsored 57 workshops, symposia, and conferences; 26 policy seminars, and 161 informal seminars.
Country Programmes
The Office for Country Programmes was moved from the Director General's Office into the Outreach Division in August 1997 based on Board and SMT discussions. The Programme was developed to further enhance IFPRI's outreach activities, to develop more specific, in-country expertise, and to strengthen the Institute's policy impact in particular countries. Although the generation of research results with characteristics of international public goods continues to be IFPRI's central objective, the Institute has realized the value of focusing IFPRI's research on a specific country's food policy issues to strengthen the quality of the research and policy impact in the study country. Country programmes are underway in China, Egypt, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda, and Vietnam. Discussions concerning new directions for and structure of Country Programmes are underway in the SMT.
Regional Networks
IFPRI is planning to establish a network of IFPRI Associates that will help IFPRI keep its research and outreach activities relevant to, and informed by the policy issues and policy environment where IFPRI works in the developing world. In addition, IFPRI is facilitating the establishment of networks in East and West Africa to stimulate and help countries to develop their own 2020 Visions and take steps to implement them.
Impact Assessment
Formal impact assessment is a relatively new activity in IFPRI, although it has been doing research on impact assessment methodology and approaches for some time. The work is spread across divisions, with activity particularly in OD and EPTD. IFPRI is working to develop a more strategic approach to assessing the Institute's impact. A senior-level staff member will be hired soon to undertake this work in conjunction with the CGIAR Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group. As mentioned, more detailed discussion of IFPRI impacts is provided in Chapter 3.
2.5.2.1 Issue 1: Closer Integration of Outreach with Research
2.5.2.2 Issue 2: Facilitating Mechanisms in Partner Countries
The present DG and IFPRI Board have made a commitment to expand and professionalize the outreach functions of IFPRI and to integrate the outreach methods more closely with the research activities of the Institute. As stated by the ICER, IFPRI's "movement down the twin paths of professionalization (of communication services) and integration (of research with outreach) is in order." The EPMR team also applauds this intention; and, indeed, it sees some evidence that these improvements are taking place.
At the same time, the Panel considers that the greatest uncertainty surrounding IFPRI at present is the future direction and role of outreach and several of the programmes within it. Little uncertainty and no strategic issues exist concerning the publications and library support functions of the OD, the typical functions found in a communications division. However, there are some questions about the intended role of the newly enlarged OD in proactively initiating outreach training and capacity strengthening activity, in co-ordinating or facilitating IFPRI work in partner countries, and in establishing and managing 2020 networks.
Since IFPRI has not yet developed any firm positions on these latter activities, preferring to wait until a director of the new OD has been identified and come on board, the Panel can only raise questions and provide some of its thoughts on various options. The basic issues the Panel addresses below are:
· (1) How does IFPRI best generate a closer integration of outreach with research, in terms of a) specific research programmes within divisions, and b) in cross-cutting themes which IFPRI should address?; and· (2) How should IFPRI proceed in establishing facilitating mechanisms in partner countries that can help IFPRI projects in the countries take advantage of complementarities and avoid duplications and conflicts, ensure a continuity of activity and a longer term presence of IFPRI, and create mechanisms for funding of relevant projects in the countries?
The Panel agrees with IFPRI's view and the ICER comment that a feeling of outreach ownership in research programmes is a prerequisite for securing adequate participation in such activities from researchers, particularly senior ones. However, the ICER also noted there is a strong attitude in some IFPRI researchers that outreach is not their responsibility and that it is a drain on their precious time. At most, they are interested in outreach to other scientists and academics, mainly in developed countries, working on similar problems. They are not interested in the appropriate audiences in their partner countries in the developing world. While the EPMR also found some of that attitude still present, it appears that management is starting to persuade researchers that there is no choice, that outreach in a form that is appropriate to developing countries is a real and actual requirement of every researcher's job. The problem is to get this feeling of ownership spread among researchers on a voluntary basis, which is the only way in which it really will work. The question thus arises: In what ways should the OD work with the research divisions to foster such ownership of the activities that link their research to application and use by developing country policy makers, policy analysts, and researchers?
Links Between Outreach and Research Divisions
The IFPRI Vietnam project developed by the MSSD is a good example of a case where such ownership developed and contributed to the highly successful IFPRI related outreach activities in that country, involving technical training, policy analysis training, study tours, visiting fellows activity, and transfer of a spatial equilibrium model built by IFPRI researchers. This project indicates that researchers, appropriately supported by training specialists, can develop effective and efficient outreach and capacity strengthening activities. IFPRI has had other similar successes. However, other examples exist where researchers have worked in isolation, with little concern for what is left behind in the way of improved capacity and understanding.
There is no one universal model to ensure success in integrating outreach with research. However, some prerequisites (necessary but not sufficient conditions) for success in integrating research and outreach include the following:
· the incentive structure for researchers must include outreach as an explicit output right from the beginning of a project;· researchers should be made accountable for outreach in annual performance evaluations;
· financial and time incentives need to be in place;
· there must be ready access to the professional knowledge and skills required to efficiently mount an effective training or capacity building activity under diverse conditions; and
· the materials (research results, methods and approaches) to be used in the training and capacity building activities must be appropriate for the intended target populations.
The question is: How does IFPRI best ensure that these prerequisites are in place? Does it do it through an equal partnership between researchers and outreach people? Does it do it through placing greater emphasis on researcher responsibilities in outreach (using various incentives) while making professional outreach expertise available through various mechanisms for co-operation in the Institute between outreach experts and researchers? Or does it adopt some other approach? The Panel believes that in a research institute such as IFPRI, and given its self-imposed boundaries as described above, the training and capacity strengthening has to be riven by the substance of the research and research methods, with the specific outreach mechanisms chosen being a function of how best to transfer or communicate the specific subject matter. This would imply a co-operating, facilitating, and service role for outreach in the training and capacity strengthening area.
Ultimately, IFPRI has to develop the approach that fits its own institutional culture best. But it does need to move forward aggressively with the task at hand, recognising the opportunity to make much better use of the wealth of information, techniques, and other valuable knowledge existing in the Centre that has not adequately reached researchers, analysts, and policy makers in developing countries.
The Panel thus suggests that:
IFPRI (1) develop an internally consistent approach to ensuring researcher ownership of, and incentive for outreach associated with research projects; and (2) determine how such ownership and participation best can be fostered within the institutional culture of IFPRI.
The appropriate elements will include consideration of the possible incentives and their likely effectiveness in the IFPRI culture and the professional outreach services needed and how best to supply them - in-house or contracted.
Cross-Cutting Outreach Activities
Some will be quick to point out that there are certain key outreach themes and activities that cut across research divisions. The argument is that these are a form of institute wide "public goods," i.e., research divisions do not individually have sufficient incentive to initiate and follow through on such themes. Yet, they are worth pursuing within the context of IFPRI's mandate and priorities. It is reasoned that these will only be produced if some cross cutting mechanism exists outside the research divisions. The new OD within IFPRI is envisioned in this role for such activities as general conferences on policy processes or other themes that cut across divisions.
The question is: How will the OD develop the incentives for individual division participation in such activities, given the great numbers of activities and obligations and demands on their time that already exist? If research division ownership and participation are not forthcoming for these cross-cutting activities, then does the OD have any business being involved in them?
An alternative model to having the OD initiate these is that IFPRI creates the incentives (financial or other) to encourage direct interaction between divisions or between MPs in a given division to develop the substance of such cross-cutting theme seminars, conferences, training, or other activities, relying on professional outreach expertise within OD to organize and provide the logistical input for them. This again would cast OD more in a support or cooperating role, rather than in an initiating role.
Ultimately, the initial ideas for such cross-cutting themes should be able to come from anywhere within or outside the Institute, particularly from developing country fora, with a relevant, ad hoc committee of those researchers most closely associated with the theme passing judgement on the idea's relevance and priority. If deemed to be a priority, then the requirements for making it a productive activity also would be considered by the committee. Incentives will be required to make such a system work. It cannot easily be forced on researchers. A source of seed money funding to develop promising ideas into full-scale proposals is needed.
The felt need for a longer term, continuing presence in partner countries grew steadily in IFPRI after the current DG made explicit the concept that countries in which IFPRI works have to be treated as partners in need of longer term capacity building in addition to being data points in cross sectional research aimed at producing IPGs. The "country programme" concept derived from this focus on longer term impact in the countries which participate in IFPRI research. The country programme activity was recently moved from the DG's office to OD. There is no head at present (the past one resigned recently to take another position). This is an opportune time to revisit the country programme concept and activities.
Should such country programmes exist? If so, how should they be chosen - what are the appropriate criteria? How should they be managed at headquarters (i.e., is current placement in OD appropriate, or should they be returned to the DG's office where cross-cutting facilitating mechanisms also cut fit)? If they stay in the OD, then how should the newly expanded OD work with research divisions in terms of country programmes and networks? On this latter point, it again is recognized that there is need for a facilitating mechanism that ensures: (a) co-ordination and compatibility among IFPRI research projects in a given country and region, (b) a convenient, visible presence to help the host country and IFPRI tap into new sources of funding for work in the country; and (c) continuity of activity in countries and regions beyond the completion of specific research projects to ensure adaptation and eventual adoption of the innovations and ideas produced in IFPRI/host country projects. At present, it is envisioned that the country programmes would be staffed by longer term positions in the partner countries.
There is need for more consistency in country programmes and need for clearer lines of authority and responsibility and accountability. In such cases, where considerable and diverse activity exists or is planned in a given country, one might be able to justify a country office and local country facilitator. At the same time, the Panel considers that in-house country programme staff in IFPRI-Washington is difficult to justify. IFPRI is not large enough to justify such additional overhead costs, given the likely numbers of projects and overall size of IFPRI budget in any given country involved. Further, if IFPRI has a visible, longer term presence (different from a temporary research presence) there is a risk that IFPRI will become involved in local disputes over the appropriate pathways for agricultural development.
The Panel thus suggests that
IFPRI assess very carefully the need for, location of, and appropriate modus operandi of, a country programmes office. A detailed set of criteria and process of justification for each newly established country programme should be developed, if the conclusion remains that country programmes are desirable. The assessment also should be applied to the "high concentration countries" (HCCs) recognized by IFPRI, i.e., those countries in which IFPRI has or has had a high concentration of projects and staff.The two should be brought together in developing a consistent approach to meeting the needs expressed above related to continuing of activity, improving effectiveness of outreach, and building on the complementarities among IFPRI activities in a given country.
A number of questions also surround the establishment of what IFPRI calls 2020 regional networks. The relevant questions are discussed in the following section, which deals specifically with the 2020 Vision programme.
In Summary
The Panel recommends that:
a) the respective roles of the research divisions and the outreach division in outreach activities are clarified and that the outreach function is well integrated with research;b) there is mutual reinforcement of research and outreach, with research driving outreach on the dissemination of research findings and outreach influencing research on the identification of research problems;
c) if a country programme format is used, it recognizes the need for integration of research and outreach, provides an efficient mechanism for management, and is reasonably consistent across countries in which IFPRI operates.
2.6.1 Context
2.6.2 Outputs and Achievements
2.6.3 Future Developments
Many would argue that IFPRI's 2020 Vision Initiative, started in 1993, is the single most important activity to have been launched in IFPRI, It has provided a means to synthesize some of its research and to get much of it out to a wide audience of policy makers, donors, countries, NGOs and civil society in general. This activity has helped IFPRI establish its name in agricultural and food policy related circles worldwide. It has helped to bring agriculture and food related issues back to the forefront for some donors and many policymakers. It has facilitated understanding of what is known, what is imperfectly known, and what is not known about the world agricultural and food situations,
The 2020 Vision initiative has two primary objectives: (1) to develop and promote a shared vision and consensus for action for meeting food needs while reducing poverty and protecting the environment; and (2) to generate information and encourage debate to influence action by national governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, international development institutions, and civil society. These objectives fit within the broader 2020 Vision of a world where every person has access to sufficient food to sustain a healthy and productive life, where malnutrition is absent, and where food originates from efficient, effective, and low-cost food systems that are compatible with sustainable use of natural resources. The Panel notes the agreement between this vision and that of the CGIAR in general.
IFPRI was well-suited for the 2020 Vision initiative: it had the expertise, stock of knowledge, the resources, and the intellectual and political independence required. All these conditions are not often found in policy research institutions dealing with policy research. Any one of these reasons would have been sufficient to launch such an activity. All of them together provide a powerful argument for the exercise. The Panel commends IFPRI for the initiative.
Preparation of the study papers in preparation for the 1995 2020 Vision conference imposed an additional burden on the staff, which led to some temporary complaints. Following the conference, the activity was redesigned to avoid such a burden. Thus, there is a steering committee consisting of the DG and the division directors who best can assess the implications of given activities in terms of staff time. They decide on whether an activity should go forward. Furthermore, staff are covered for their activities from 2020 funds, so they become incorporated in their workplans. In fact, 2020 activities are part of their workplans. In addition to the internal controls, the initiative has an international advisory board made up of distinguished scholars, and policymakers.
The number of papers produced under the heading of 2020 is enormous: In addition to the newsletter there have been 10 booklets, 23 discussion papers, 47 policy briefs, 4 major synthesis papers, and several videos and a widely distributed poster. In addition, there have been some 100 follow-up activities held in more than 40 industrialized and developing countries including Indonesia, Japan, Denmark, South Africa, Colombia, and Germany, and more are scheduled. These events have involved a large number of people including host-country ministers, other key leaders, and the media, seminars, workshops, conferences, and presentations held in many different countries. To produce this many products of good quality in a few years is impressive.
IFPRI and the 2020 messages now are known the world over in concerned circles; and IFPRI frequently is called upon for advice and opinions on topics related to its broad spectrum of expertise. The 2020 Vision initiative has been written about in more than 300 newspaper and magazine articles, including feature stories in the New York Times, the Financial Times, Asian Wall Street Journal, Berlingske Tidende, Yomiuri, and the India Monitor.
The Panel considers that another major achievement is the development of a simple formal model of the world food equilibrium, enabling researchers to perform additional simulations or build their own models from the ideas developed at IFPRI. It must be noted that the IFPRI model is both simpler and in many respects (for instance, by explicitly taking into account water scarcity) more comprehensive than many similar ones.
In terms of other follow-up activities to extend further the 2020 Vision and the various products that came out of this activity, IFPRI:
· is in the process of placing all the 2020 publications, including discussion papers, on the worldwide web;· has joined forces with the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) to advise the producers of a new series of programmes on people and their environment;
· sis working directly with developing country governments and international and bilateral agencies regarding the lessons from 2020 Vision initiative;
· is continuing its work with media to explain the issues addressed by the 2020 Vision initiative.
Phase I of the 2020 Vision initiative concluded in December of 1996. Phase II was initiated in January of 1997 and is currently in progress. The emphasis is on helping developing countries design and implement their own 2020 strategies and action plans. In this second phase, IFPRI is addressing three thrusts:
· to generate timely, state-of-the-knowledge information on key issues, paying particular attention to emerging issues that could potentially influence the 2020 Vision;· to communicate the 2020 Vision to diverse audiences, including increased efforts to reach the next generation(s) of policymakers, analysts, and researchers, and member of civil society - the ones who will be carrying through the 2020 strategies and action plans; and
· to provide a forum for dialogue, debate, information sharing, and consensus building, paying particular attention to including not only policy makers, but also members of NGOs, the private sector; and the media.
In addition. Phase II will focus on helping individual developing countries to design and implement their own 2020 strategies. Thus, IFPRI is helping to establish subregional 2020 Vision networks for East and West Africa. Countries will organize collaborative activity through such regional networks. The networks will help in establishing, assisting, and reinforcing the work undertaken by individual country research teams and enable them to learn from each other for the purpose of improving the knowledge base for policymaking in the regions.
The Panel notes that IFPRI's role in these networks will be limited to strengthening the conceptual and analytical capacity of the country teams, co-ordinating the meetings and other activities of the network, and facilitating the impact of the output of the country teams on policies to achieve the country-specific goals underlying the 2020 Vision. The network activities will be designed and implemented in close collaboration with donor sponsored activities to promote agricultural development, sustainable use of natural resources, and improved health and nutrition in the countries of the regions. The regional activities of IFPRI will primarily be of an outreach nature; and for this reason the networking activity within the 2020 framework will be placed as a programme in the OD.
The Panel agrees with IFPRI's assessment that the 2020 Vision will only be realized if individual countries conduct their own 2020 Vision-type research and outreach activities. As such it supports the intention of IFPRI to become involved in the activities as planned. It also supports IFPRI's intention to only become involved in an advisory and outreach/capacity strengthening role, with the intention of devolving the activity to regional associations and groups after five years or so. This will be a new type of activity for IFPRI (a main focus being on outreach rather than research). As such, the Institute should be able to learn a great deal from the activity.
A word of caution is in order. While the demand for this type of activity undoubtedly exists and countries could gain significant benefits from such a perspective exercise, most countries will not have sufficient analytical capacity on hand to actually carry out the substance of the necessary assessments. Nor will there be much local capacity to organize and co-ordinate the diversity of inputs necessary for this exercise. As such, some frustration could result both on the part of the countries and on the part of IFPRI unless realistic targets are set. IFPRI should therefore be realistic in its expectations of what can be accomplished at the country level.
IFPRI also intends to continue at a lower level of intensity to fill in gaps in its global activity. To this end, IFPRI has established a position of 2020 co-ordinator in the DG's office. In carrying forth this activity, IFPRI should consider the desirability of updating the present global model used for the 2020 Vision projections, perhaps transforming it into a full CGE model, and then use it to bring evidences to bear in the domains where 2020 has been considered as controversial. (See also Section 2.4).
The Panel supports the various intended activities. At the same time, the Panel urges IFPRI to continue to (1) keep 2020 Vision activities in perspective as an outreach activity in the context of its main mission of carrying out high quality policy research and transferring its experience and expertise through capacity strengthening activities; and (2) formalize more the process of gaining feedback through the 2020 for use in planning its research programme and priorities.
