consultative group on international agricultural research technical advisory committee report of the second external programme review of the international food policy research institute (IFPRI) tat secretariat FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS This report comprises: (a) Extract from: “Summary of Proceedings and Decisions”, CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting 1991, Paris, France, 21-23 May 1991 (b) Letter from TAC Chairman to the CGIAR Chairman, transmitting the Report of the Second External Programme Review TAC Commentary on the External Reviews of IFPRI IFPRI’ s Response to the Report of the Second External Programme and Management Reviews Transmittal Letter from Panel Chairman to TAC Chairman Report of the Second External Programme Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI) Review of the International Food THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT SECOND EXTERNAL OF THE REVIEW OF THE INSTITUTE PROGRAMME INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY (IFPRI) RESEARCH TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION October 1991 OF THE UNITED NATIONS Consukative Group on international Agricdtural Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, Q.C. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 801 19th Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202l 473-3351 Cable Addres-s-IMTBAFRAD Fax (Area Code 2021 334-8750 From: The Secretariat June 1991 CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting May 21 - 23, 1991 Paris, France IFPRI - External Reviews A/ Mr. Ali Mohmed khusro, Chairman of the External Program Review Panel, paid tribute to IFPRI's effective collaboration on the whole in its outreach with national research institutions and with international research institutions. IFPRI's policy work was acknowledged by peer groups and its impact noted. Despite IFPRPds recent management crisisr it remained one of the world's leading institutions. The period of non-participatory, opaque decision making which had adversely affected IFPRI management was now behind them. Under the direction of Mr. Just Faaland, interim Director-General, positive changes were being implemented at IFPRI and monitored by the Board. The Director General is to be assisted by a new senior management committee in reviewing all major decisions on administration and finance, and also major projects. Members of this committee should include program directors , a new director of outreach and the director of finance and administration. The appointment of a Deputy Director General for Research and Development and a research committee are also fisheries recommended. With expansion of the system into forestry, and irrigation management, the Board might well reconsider and broaden IFPRI's mandate to incorporate these new areas. The panel advocated a more formal component of training, IFPRI, training should expose including the in-service functions. PFPRI seminars have scholars to the methodologies in IFPRI's studies. been successful, but the impact of IFPRI in capacity building needs improvement. The panel recommended that a new program for "Natural Resources and the Environment" be created with the immediate establishment of two staff positions. On the gender issue, there is no specific instruction within IFPRI's framework of strategy. The time has come to address this issue and build it into the research program. Extract from "Summary of Proceedings and Decisions", CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting, Paris, France. iV The panel recommended continued financial support for IFPRI. Mr. Wil:Liam Gormbley, Chairman of the External Management Review Panel, said that in the view of the panel, IFPRf needed an inkdepth review of its mission, the development of a strategic plan, thie creation of a leadership cadre and a research structure and program based on teanrwork among its Board, its Director and its top management cadre and the research and support staff. The panel directed the Board to take actions in deciding how to handle decisions concerning top management, in restoring confidence in the Board to govern the institute effectively, and in developing a strategic plan through a participatory process of staff and stakeThese and related measures would help the new Director holders. General to get his bearings as soon as possible after he or she was named. The panel also highlighted some concerns which are systemwidie: the process of nominated and appointed CGIAR Board members; length of tenure of the chief executive and senior scientists and to some extent Board chairs; adjudication of extremely difficult personal issues ak the senior program and management level; and a mechanism to introduce change in a center from outside when the management and Board do not respond. Mr. McCalla noted that a strategic plan was necessary and was in process. IFl?RI had grown rapidly and had relied on soft funding for special pro:jects which gives it a narrow base in terms of donor TAC looks forward to support and this raises the issue of stability. the kind of approaches that IFPRI will propose to multiply its ability to build national program research capacity. He felt that there is need to develop further the collaboration between IFI?RI and other international research institutions, within and outside the CGIAR. This again appears to be in process. TAC recommended continued strong support of IFPRI and help for it as it proceeds into a second generation or a third generation as a within the CGIAR. quality, relevant , important institution Mr. Gerry Helleiner, Chairman of the Board, said that the Board, with the help of some external consultants with experience of the CGIAR, had undertaken a major review and restructuring of its mode of operations. The Board now has a program committee, a conflict of interest policy, as well as terms of reference for all the officers and committees. A written working agreement between the Director General and the Board was in place. There was now a different spirit in the Board's activities and its approach to its responsibilities. A search committee for the new Director General, chaired by Mr. Vernon Ruttan, has been active and now has a short list which will developing with the staff a strategic plan for reri;earch and for training capacity-building outreach. Comments on the draft have been solicited from a wide range of sources including most recently a collection of developing country collaborators. soon be made public. The Board has undertaken a major investment in v Mr. Helleiner said IFPRI was fortunate to have Nr. Just Faaland at the helm. His steady and skilled leadership was appreciated, both by the staff and by the Board. Staff morale was very high. Mr. Faaland, interim Director General, described in some detail the changes that had been made in the management of research at IFPRI. The directors of new research divisions have been given clear and specific authority to guide and administer research within their divisions. A Directors, Advisory Committee meets biweekly to review management program decisions and a Research Advisory Committee meets regularly to maintain an overvie-w of all research and outreach programs. The internal program review process is being strengthened and a personnel manager is on board. There are simply not enough resources to appoint a deputy at this time or a director of outreach, as has been suggested. Mr. Paaland indicated that developing the strategic plan had been a matter of urgency not primarily because of the review but because it is an operational necessity. The revised draft will be presented to TAC at the end of June. Some of the issues that will surface are the optimal size of the institute, balance between core and complementary funding, the number of permanent versus time-limited staff appointments , and how much to emphasize the collection of micro data relevant to broad policy issues as opposed to direct study of some of the broader trade and macroeconomic issues. IF’ PRI’ s internal management, as well as IFPRI’ s relationship with its partners , were at the core of many comments from participants. As part of this discussion, the most appropriate future location of IFPRI was raised. The possibility of locating IFPRI in a developing country was mentioned, with the suggestion that such a move would enhance IFPRI,s impact on the policy environment in developing countries and its proposed future interaction with national programs. The role IFPRI could play in the issues of sustainability and environmental degradation was explored. Participants asked whether this can be done pragmatically and progressively, or whether it would be asking too much in terms of a further expansion of IFPRI? It was suggested that IFPRI work out what level of funding would be required for entry into this arena. It was also pointed out that IFPRI helps in the production of data and research by other centers so that it is important to maintain a training program for other institutions in the field of food policy, rural well-being and the impact of new technologies. Mr. Helleiner and Mr. Faaland responded. Mr. Helleiner said that a paper is now being prepared for the Board on the location issue. He further suggested that the system would have to set up its own monitoring of the Board and again endorsed a paper that addresses the systemwide responsibilities of Center Boards. Vi He appealed to the Group to choose an appropriate time for an interim review and suggested that this wait until after the new Director General is in place. Mr. Faaland said that they were going into the sustainability arena by pushing a bit harder on the sorts of things they were already doing and that a seminar to look at IFPRI’ s involvement would be held later in the year. Concluding the discussion, Mr. Thalwitz informed the Group that a forthcoming World Rank report on the ingredients of succes$ful development comes to the conclusion that the effect of policy change on the success of development is three times as high as any other It was therefore vital, he said, for the CGIAR to have and to action. nurture an institute that helps to fashion the policy environment in developing countries. Alex F. McCalla Chair 5 February 1991 Dear Mr. Thalwitz, I take pleasure in transmitting herewith the report of the Second External Programme Review of IFPRI which was conducted during September and October 1998 under the chairmanship of Dr. Ali M. Khusro of India. The main phase of the review was don e concurrently with that of the Second External Management Review chaired by Dr. William P. Cormbley Jr. of the United States of America. Both reports were examined by TAC at its 53rd Meeting in October 1990 in the presence of the Panel Chairs and representatives of IFPRI,s Board of Trustees and senior management. We were pleased to note that the Institute was quickly recovering from the uncertainty and anxiety caused by the recent abrupt changes in the chairmanship of the Board and in senior management. We were impressed with the high quality of the reports which provided a comprehensive analysis of IFPRI’ s programmes and management. In general we endorsed most of the major recommendations of the Panels and we were pleased with the constructive manner in which the Board and management of IFPRI had reacted to those recommendations. Recalling that the main phase of the external reviews occured at a period of transition in IFPRI,s top management, and noting that further changes are expected within two years, TAC fully endorses the proposal of the BMRand EPR Panels that serious consideration should be given to the mounting of a mid-term external review of IFPRI in two years time. The review should be done just after the new long-term Director General takes office, TAC prepared its commentary on the reports based on a preliminary IFPRI Board and management response dated 10 October 1990. IFPRI, subsequent to the TAC meeting, has modified its commentary, particularly paragraphs A-l and A-4. Thus portions of the TAC commentary may seem at variance with the final IFPRI response. TAC as a whole has not had the opportunity to react to the changes in IFPRI’ s response. But in the Mr. Wilfried P. Thalwitz CGIARChair World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 28433 USA Mail address: Technical Advisory Comm/CGIAR, University of California, Davis, CA 96616 Tel: (916) 752-6646/6649 -Telex: 4900010239 UCD UI - FAX (916) 752-6572 Office Location: 219 E St.. Suite 2C, Davis, CA viii interest of the members of the CGIAR receiving the basic documents well in advance of the 1991 Mid-Year Meeting, TAC is including the original TAC-approved commentary. The overall picture emerging from the review reports and the TAC commentary is that IFPRI is a productive Centre and is undergoing a On TAC's behalf and on my own behalf, I am pleased to transition. recommend continu'ed support for IFPRI by the CGIAR. Sincerely, / Alex F. McCalla Chairman, TAC iX TAC COljIMENTaRY C’ NTBE EXTERNAL REVIEW5OF IFPRI TAC is very grateful to Drs, Ali M. Khusro, William P, Cormbley, and their colleagues for the thorough and penetrating External Reviews It acknowledges their of IFPRI, and for the excellent reports. difficult assignment in view of the management challenges the Insti%ute was facing and the dynamic developments that ensued. In general TAC endorses the views! conclusions and recommendations of the Panels on %he activities, strategic governance of IFPRI, research and research-related planning, research management, and managemen% of human and financial resources. In transmitting the reports of %he External Programme and Management Review Panels TAC notes that %he Institute has no% completed its strategic plan and that only a revised draft document, which had not been considered by the Board of Trustees, was made available to the Review Panels. As already stressed by TAC on two previous occasions in connection with ILCA (in 1986) and IRRI (in 1987), a Board approved strategic plan is considered essential to the external review process. The conclusions and recommendations of the Review Panels reflect the absence of an explicit strategy and indicate an urgent need to complete the strategic planning 3roceK In view of the above circumstances, TAC considers that the external review process has no% yet been completed until the Institute finalizes its strategic plan. TAC will therefore retain both reviews on its agenda. However, we recognize that action is needed urgently on some of the issues raised by the Panels, These are highlighted for consideration of the CGIAR. In their analysis of IFPRI’ s pas% successesl current activities, mode of operation and present character, the Review Panels have identified a number of issues, some of which have CGIAR-wide relevance. In its response to the EPR and EMR repor%s, the Board of Trustees has stated that it is in full agreement with many of the recommendations and suggestions in the two reports ; and that the Board has already taken s general action on some of them. TAC is pleased to note the Board’ acceptance of many of the recommendations and suggestions made by the Review Panels. In light of the recommendations of the External Review Panels and the reactions of the Board, TAC offers the following commentary. Strategic Planning One of the objectives of strategic planning is to inject rigour and transparency into the planning process. The outcome of the External Reviews clearly demonstrates that these features were lacking a% IFPRI. TAC is in full agreement with the Review Panels in recommending that the Institute proceed promptly with the development of a strategic plan. This will be a critical ingredient in the preparation of the next medium-term programme and budge% plan of IFPRI, which must be considered and approved by TAC during 3992. While the internal process should be participatory, TAC also wishes to stress the importance of ensuring an X external dimension through active involvement of IFPRI's stakeholders, peers, and collaborators in developed and developing countries. The sense of IFPRI as a mission-oriented institute should be articulated in the strategic plan I and its role should be clearly differentiated from that of academic and other institutions involved in policy research. Research Organization and Management A/ A number of recommendations and suggestions were made jointly by the EPR and EMRI?anels on the structure and management of research. These are fully endorsed by TAC and we note that the Board has authorized management to initiate action on some recommendations. TAC welcomes the Board's decision to follow the recommendation to appoint a Deputy Director General at an early date. It notes that for the time being the choice will be limited to an in-house person, and for a period that would be co-terminus with the term of the present Director General to allow his successor the necessary flexibility to choose his or her own deputy. The EPR Panel proposes a number of programme changes, particularly relating to the Production Policy and Growth Linkages Programmes as well as for the newly proposed Natural Resources and Environment Prog:ramme. We consider that such changes should not be finalized until %he completion of the strategic planning exercise. Issues relating 'to programme organization and balance, coherence and critical mass should be considered explicitly during the development of the strategic plan. Succession in IFPRI's Senior Managmenet &/ TAC commends the Board for its prompt action regarding appointment of a Search Committee for a new Director General. We note that the one-year term of the current Director General has been extended to August 1992, with mutual understanding that he could leave earlier depending on the starting date of his successor. We understood the wish expressed by the Board to "put its house in order" before the appointment of the next Director General. However, we caution against going too far with the completion of the strategic plan without the participation of IFPRI's new Director General. This underlies the importance of prloceeding with the selection process with all due ha&e. Decision-Makinu Processes The Board and Management of IFPRI face many difficult decisions. TAC urges that, in efforts to ensure that such decisions are well informed and transparent, IFPRI develop more participatory is decision-making processes. TAC considers that greater collegiality essential in all modes of operation at IFPRI. Y See the note at the end of the TAC Commentary xi Resource Allocations TAC notes the high proportion of non-core funding in IFPRI's was budget. During 1990 I 58% of projected research resource allocations to come from restricted core and special project sourcesI with 55% of these earmarked funds deriving from one donor. This crea%as an impression that IFPRI's research is becoming increasingly opportunistic and too dependent on a single donor, IFPRI needs to take care to avoid over dependency on soft funding and a narrow donor base@ which could drive its programme priorities. This highlights the urgency for the development of a Board-approved strategy and associated priority-setting mechanisms. Comnosition of Staff We note the high proportion of nationals of the USA and USA-trained people on %he senior research staff. While excellence in quality should be the main criterion for the selection of scientific staff, it is urged that attempts be made to achieve greater diversity of training cultures among the senior scientific staff. IFPRI should also attempt to increase the proportion of women in senior positions, Scientific Quality The Insti%u%e has produced many research re published a number of books %hat are in high demand by its clientele and collaborators. We note that some IFPRI publications have received the highest peer recognition. There is also a good record of published papers in international journals. However, the Review Panels did no% find an adequate mechanism in place at IFPRI for regular external peer reviews, or for staff performance appraisal and a corresponding reward system. TAC is concerned that there has been only one internal programme review a% IFPRI since %he 1984 EPR. TAC wishes to stress the importance of ensuring %he highest standards of scientific quality and relevance of research at the IARCs in the CGIAR System and urges that the Institute should, as a matter of urgency, initiate a staff performance appraisal system and ensure that internal programme reviews are a regular feature of the Insti%ute's monitoring and review process. It follows that staff whose contracts are coming to an end should undergo a careful review and assessment before their contracts are extended. Capacity Building in National Research Systems TAC notes %hat the Review Panels had difficulty in assessing IFPRI's performance in capacity building in national institutions, I% also notes IFPRI's reluctance to attach a training label %o their capacity-building activities. TAC disagrees with the notion advanced by IFPRI that one cannot think of trainees in food policy research in the same way as one thinks of in relation to those IARCs involved in biological research. TX considers that IFPRI should adopt a more formal approach to its training activities using materials generated from its own research. It should be recalled that the CGIAR System as a whole spends 19% of its resources on human capital development and institution building. It has not been possible to determine precisely %he resources IFPRI devotes to this aspect of its mandate. xii Collaboration with Other IARCs and International Agencies TAC notes %he limited collaborative arrangements between IFPRI and other IARCs, FAO and the World Bank, and urges the parties concerned to strive to strengthen their cooperation. Such a move would facilitate greater complementarity between their activities and enhance policy impact in developing countries. Impact of IFPRI TAC commends IFPRI for its stated impact. However, we note that the assessment of IFPRI's impact has been somewhat anecdotal. The Institute should incorporate into its review and monitoring processes an appropriate measure of the impact of its policy research, capacity building in WARS, and contribution to science. Conclusion IFPRI emerges from the review reports and the TAC discussion as an Institute in a state of transition, but one with a solid foundation for productive research that is relevant to the needs of developing TAC commends the external review reports on IFPRI to the countries. CGIAR for its deliberation with the understanding that the reviews should be considered incomplete until the Institute has developed a Board approved st,rategic plan. TAC notes %he recent developments at IFPRI, the absence of a strategic plan , and the limited extent to which the recommendations of the 1984 external reviews were implemented. We are concerned with the failure of the Board to monitor the process, and concur with the proposal of the EIXRand the implicit suggestion of the EPR that TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat should organize a re-appraisal of IFPRI in about would have two years. By then TAC would expect that the Institute completed its str(ategic plan. TAC believes that this re-appraisal should be completled prior to its October 1992 meeting. The lessons from IFPRI suggest a need for an early warning and response mechanism, preferably internal to the Institute, that would facilitate the di'agnosis and solution of problems before they Under normal circumstances this should be a Board precipitate a crisis. :However, in this case the IFPRI Board had difficulties. responsibility. Finally, TAC would like to draw the attention of the CGIAR to the System-wide issues raised by the EMRand urges the Group to consider them, especially those concerning possible conflicts of interest, accountability of Boards of Trustees to Centre staff, the length of tenure of Directors General, and the relationship between Boards of Trustees and senior management. xiii NOTE TAC had considered the review reports in October 1990 and had prepared its commentary based on a preliminary Board and management In December 1990 IFPRI sent its final response to the review reports. response. Two paragraphs in the revised text (~-1 and A-4) made it necessary for TAC to reconsider its own commentary - a process which had to wait for the 54th meeting of TAC in March 1991. In the light of “Research Organization “Succession in IFPRI’ s been slightly changed Research Organization IFPRI’ s final response, %he firs% paragraph under and Management” and the section dealing with Senior Management” in the TAC Commentary have to read: and Management A number of recommendations and suggestions were made jointly by the EPR and EBR Panels on %he structure and management of research. These are fully endorsed by TAC and we note %hat the Board has authorized management to initiate action on some recommendations. TAC welcomes the Board’ s decision to follow the recommendation to appoint a Deputy Director General. Considering that the present Director General is on a short-term appointment, the selection of a Deputy should be done either in consultation with the candidate chosen for the long4er-m Director General position, or the term of the a intee should be co-terminruswith that of the in K-It* Succession in IFPRI’ s Senior Management TAC commends the Board for its prompt action regarding appointment of a Search Committee for a new Director General. It notes that the term of the current Director General will end in August 1992, and that the Board of Trustees has authorized him to determine and to implementtheneededmanagementchanges, aswell as toundertake the process that will qlete the preparation of a strategic plan for IFPRJL. While TAC fully understands the Board's wish te put its house in order before the appointment of the long-term Director General, it cautions against going too far with the completion of the strategic plan without the participation of the long-term Director General. This underlies the importance of proceeding promptly with the selection process for the long-term Director General to ensure that the success candidate has a chance to provide his or her inputs into the formulation of the strategic plan. 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. 20036-I 990 USA Tel: (202) 862-5600 Telex: 440054 Fax: (202) 467-4439 Cable: IFPRI CGNET: 57:CGl701 FXNAL (December 7. 1990) Response of the Board of Trustees of the International to the External Food Policy Program Research Institute and Management Reviews The Board of Trustees reviews We are supported of IFPRI’ s grateful review to is pleased to comment on the second external have just been completed. selected and to and the to The program and management that the TAC and to of such the CGIAR for qualified having persons teams for highly members themselves understand considered having worked and the so intensively concerns of and sensitively its will staff. IFPRI’ s judgements program incorporated in their reports be invaluable to the Board as well mandated policies task of as to management as the Institute and analyzing alternative continues strategies in its and hunger identifying to meet food needs throughout the world and to reduce and malnutrition in low income countries. We are especially Khusro, graciously original who led the grateful program to the Chairmen of the teams, review, of and Dr. the William Dr. Ali M. who Gormbley, assumed the team Chairman That both and leadership accepted management review offer skillfully issues when the of in the found the Board's tasks of the of the directorship is evident facing IFPRI IFPRI. thorough throughout carried out their analysis insightful the two reports. xvi Borrti R~rponro to EPR/EWR D~c~m&~~g~. R-ports _ lSp0 Although the Institute's the lreview teams arrived history, the timing at IFPRI at a difficult of their study proved moment in opportune. of the and The members of the Board and the new management, fully need to introduce a number of now changes have in the both benefit cognizant the of research administrative recommendations critical management, by these future thoughtful as decisions two very are made. distinguished panels to IFPRI's A number of the recommendations Board and management before to undertaking speed. that action study will require careful study by the can be taken. and implementing we are in full We are committed, however, all needed changes with agreement with many deliberate Moreover, recommendations taken action and suggestions; its current in some cases meeting. the Board has already during A. With respect including review: to the most urgent several recommendations in the management Iby review, recommendations which were also highlighted the program 1) first Action just The Board fully shares the concern that led to the team's recommendation in this completed, the 1992. regard regarding the succession the highest pleased remain in IFPRI's priority Dr. top management. at the meeting Just Faaland hIas was accorded very to alnd we are Board's request that accepted August as Director Dr. Faaland General through and The Trustees have authorized to determine xvii Board Response to EPR/EMR December Page Reports 7. 1990 3 - to implement process that the needed management changes will complete expects the that preparation his as well of as to undertake a strategic plan the for will IFPRI. ensure The Board that acceptance well the time of this challenge the Institute long-term Trustees it will into the to is stable, leader devote takes the organized, helm. they General identify and sharply His need acceptance to agree focused also on the the best when a new, permits the qualifications Institute possible appointed reference the seek in a Director century and to has capable of leading the next and recruit a Search and given candidate. Professor which The Board Vernon Ruttan the established Chairman, to present Committee, it terms of to as its authorize Committee recommendations IFPRI Board meeting one year from now (October 1991). 2) formulating meeting, to study The Board has also and overseeing it commissioned ways to improve received taken steps to strengthen its own role in Institute a consultant its structure policy. with In advance of the current considerable CGIAR experience procedures. The and operational Board also of its a thoughtful paper which the Chairman specific changes to had asked one its by-laws in the will members to prepare, As a result, chapter, for suggesting and procedures. EMR's governance provide before the the basis full in the detailed together with set of suggestions these other contained documents, to a coherent in February detail recommendations be laid will be Board appropriate 1991. for These recommendations consideration by the developed Executive xviii Sosrd Response to EPR/ENR Dacsmber Pap0 Reports 7. 1990 4 - Committee purpose. at a special meeting to be convened in December 1990 for this 3) the process Among other procedures to be reviewed, and will the Board will consider the in of nominating balance to these of Trustees qualifications, mandate design ways to ensure and expertise appropriate areas relevant experience, and management. enter into the IFPRI’ s Indeed, judgements Board it is important both elects. the that considerations it made by it CGIAR in the trustees names and by the in those 4) Director as part The General Board Iconcurs with the recommendation that this that a Deputy be appointed and plans be done in due course, now being defined. of the changes in managerial structures 5) Personnel recruitment The BoarId also Manager for the agrees that that the Institute needs a professional steps to begin and noted management has taken the position new Manager will as a matter be to to the he/she the of urgency. design a system One of the first of performance staff tasks planning in its promptly approval of and review implementation. the appropriate Further, of This as well asked that IFPRI context will and to train be instructed personnel include to complete policies of for staff documentation Board. Institute’ s will by the process a review and other be recruitment benefits. procedures We have as of compensation special attention employment to the given xix Board Response to EPR/EUR Decrmber Pago Reports 7. 1998 5 - employment conditions and long-term prospects of the Research Analysts and Assistants. 61 The Board policy no later has directed management to draft a conflict of interest review applicable than its to the staff meeting and to members of the Board for for February scheduled 1991. 7) total believes The Board will of this the type consider Director cf policy levf!l. carefully General decision be the recommendation limited might to better ten that years the but at tenure that be reviewed the CGIAR System-wide 8) The Board to participate agrees that it is appropriate on the allocation for senior research and managers in decisions to review budget of resources process has asked management which the Institute and report back on the through amended. is initially drawn and subsequently B. With respect to principal recommendations of the Program Review: 1) plan for consultation also agrees The Board Board agrees that and IFPRI management that this staff should develop be done a strategic with full It of the and of approval among Board, that management, should and external partners. such a plan food, be developed in the context situation evolution of the world agriculture, and poverty xx ~orrd RospOnSr to EPR/EWff Decd3~~a~.~1~sw R-ports the changing international wle agree, research to adjust with the is environment. to altering support of that It realities. should also be flexible has enough, Management an will internal discuss already to initiated, this end, next the the Board, Board process progress and meeting it planned at its in February 1991. 2) The Board CGIAR welcomes the to its recommendation support strategic its plan, that proposed there work should on b'e thle increased environment. carefully ,financing As it develops the detailed the Board will consider can ble EPR recommendtions as to how such support used most effectively. 3;’ content A number and structure of other detailed r,commenda';ions regarding the of IFPRI research have been made by the EPR panel. seriously for its as the strategic The Board and management will plan While is it developed would be and take them very are to built structures implementation. to to the many its premature suggestions, creation respond the Board definitively wishes of thoughtful commitment research. and decision program to the emphasize in and maintenance excellence topic for IFPR!I Progam plans by the are scheduled next to be a major full meeting discussion Board at its in February 1991. 4) in the The Board and management will spheres of outreach, also review IFPRI’ s activitie!s with capacity-building and collaborating xxi Sorb-d Rosponsr to EPR/EF??? Dscemb~~g;.-1~9W Raportr other CGIAR centers and the international research community more generally. 5) planning In restructuring its future research its procedures, programs, developing also its strategy, and IFPRI will review carefully the many useful of research appropriate on the basis that for of recommendations were made jointly definitive the very them. concerning the structure and management It is not by the two review panels. responses limited to be made to these time which the Board recommendations and management have had to consider C. The Board requested management to undertake a comprehensive in the two and to examination reports, present of the suggestions including their report to and recommendations and budgetary in February contained implications, financial its a first meeting 1991. The Board regarding appreciates quality many compliments of research staff, at the throughout Institute, both reports the high the dedication impact of many and the and capability publications of its and other research outreach and the significant activities. grateful for Both the Trustees the thoughtful management of IFPRI are deeply which the panels and have given for their consideration focus for future to the most appropriate counsel on activities management careful ways to strengthen and oversight. xxii Board Response to EPR/EWR December PIQ(P Repot-es 7. JSSW s - The these Board also reviews wishes to acknowledge the important contribution! strengths external have made to the identification of both and weaknesses development at IFPRI and to charting appropriate with paths for future and more effective collaboration partners in low-income developing countries, A. M. Khusro B-1 1 Chiragh Enclave New Delhi-l 10048 off : 384483 Phone : Rss : 6434414 October 2, 1990 Dear Dr. McCalla, It is my pleasant duty to submit to you the report of the second External Programme Review of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). I had an excellent and hard working team, and we worked very closely with the External Management Review Panel. The review comes at a challenging time in the history of IFPRI, given recent changes in top management and in the Chair of the Board of Trustees. The staff and management of IFPRI are to be commended for their dedication to the mission and goals of IFPRI in spite of these disturbing developments- We feel that the Institute has weathered the storm very well. We received full support and cooperation from the former and present Directors and their staff. Our interactions with the Board Chairperson, senior management and staff were very cordial, open and frank. It was both a revealing and an enjoyable experience. In the last three weeks we have found a lot to commend IFPRI and its staff for. Judging from our assessment of on-going and planned activities, the large number of publications and the comments we received from IFPRI’ s partners and collaborators in developing countries, we consider the research staff are very capable and highly prodlrctive. IFPRI is planning to expand its activities to incorporate a new research thrust on environmental policy for sustainable agricultural production. Given the importance of this field for the CGIAR and IFPRI’ s record of achievements, we are supportive of this initiative. However, we only make a modest recommendation to initiate work in this area until a strategic plan and a research agenda have been developed, and IFPRI’ s progress is reassessed two to three years from now. I would like to acknowledge the help received from IFPRI, especially from Mr. Robert Bordonaro and Ms. Laurie Goldberg. We were ably assisted by Ms. Dominique Veck-Rosignoli from the TAC Secretariat and Ms. Genevieve Labeyrie-Wright from IFPRI. To them we owe a great debt of gratitude. Finally I wish to acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by my colleagues on the Panel. Sincerely yours, Ah Khusro Chairman External Programme Review Dr. A.F. McCalla Chair Technical Advisory Committee/CGIAR University of California Davis, CA 95616, USA AGR/TAC:IAR/90/27 The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Technical Advisory Committee REPORT OF THE SECOND EXTERN-AL PROGRAMME INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF THE (IFPRI) FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Review Panel: Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Ali M. Khusro (Chairman) Alain de Janvry Roger R.B. Leakey Eduardo Venezian Dr. Doris Howes Calloway (TAC Member) Dr. John H. Monyo (TAC Secretariat) Dr. John Spears (CGIAR Secretariat) TAC Secretariat Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations October 1990 xxvii TABLE OF CONTENTS MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Recent Developments at IFPRI 1.2 Need for PoIicy Research in the CGIAR 1.3 IFPRI’ s Mandate and Its Interpretation 1.4 Some Aspects of IFPRI’ s Evolution 1.5 First EPR Recommendations and IFPRI’ s Response 1.6 Terms of Reference for the Second EPR 1.7 Conduct of the Second EPR 2. OVERALL FRAMEWORK OF IFPRI’ S RESEARCH -xxii 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 AND APPROACHES: AN ASSHSSMENT 10 10 10 13 17 19 25 28 29 2.1 IFPRI’ S Vision of the Future and Strategic Plan 2.2 Current Activities at IFPRI 2.3 Assessment 3. RESEARCH PROGRAMMES 3.1 Research Programmes 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 Food Data Evaluation Programme Food Production Policy Programme Agricultural Growth Linkages Programme Food Consumption and Nutrition Policy Programme International Trade and Food Security Programme 3.2 Research Areas 3.3 Consideration of Gender in the Research Portfolio Xxviii 3.4 Overall Olbservations on Research 3.4.1. 3.4.2. 3.4.3. 3.4.4. 3.4.5. 3.4.6. 3.4.7. Performing at multiple levels of policy research Insuring excellence in research .Achieving interdisciplinarity in research without dilettantism .Key role of economies of scale in research IFPRI’ s main research contributions Suggested themes for research .Managing in-country research follow-up 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 36 AND INTERNATIONAL 40 40 42 43 44 46 46 47 49 OF RESEARCH 52 52 53 53 59 59 60 63 63 63 66 66 3.5 Assessment and Recommendations 4. CAPACITY BUILDING, COOPERATION 4.1 Training 4.2 Conferences, Seminars and Workshops 4.3 Publications and the Review Process 4.4 Linkages with Developing Countries’ Institutions 4.5 Linkages with Developed Countries’ Institutions 4.6 Cooperation with International Development Organizations 4.7 Cooperation with CGIAR Institutes 4.8 Assessment and Recommendations 5. STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT OUTREACH 5.1 Style of Leadership 5.2 IFPRI’ s Present Organizational Structure 5.2.1. 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 Research Management of outreach 14dministration Committees 5.3 Suggestions for Improving IFPRI’ s Organizational Structure 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 Research Outreach Administration Committees xxix 5=4. The Planning, Budgeting and Review Proc 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 Strategic planning Operational planning: Programme budgeting Monitoring and review 68 68 69 70 6. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOR AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 72 72 73 74 75 77 79 79 80 80 82 82 82 83 83 83 85 86 86 87 88 6.1. Rationale for IFPRI Involvement 6.2 IFPRI’ s Comparative Advantage s Proposed Environmental Policy for Agricultural 6.3 IFPRI’ Sustainability Agenda: Prioritization of Issues s Environmental and Natural Resources 6.4 Prioritization of IFPRI’ Sustainability Research Agenda 6.5 Environmental Research Organization and Management 6.6 The Organization of IFPRI’ s Environment-related Research Work 6.7 Outre.ach Programmes in the Environmental Poliq Area 6.8 Staffing and Budgetary Implications 6.9 Recommendations 7. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Introduction 7.2 IFPRI’ s Importance and Uniqueness 7.3 Mandate 7.4 Strategy 7.5 Research Programmes 7.6 Outreach and International Collaboration 7.7 The Impact of IFPRI 7.8 Research Management 7.9 Future Prospects and Opportunities 7.10 Future Scale of IFPRI Activities and Budgetary Implications xxx 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE EXTERNAL 90 95 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ANNEXES Annex I Annex II Annex III Annex IV Annex V Annex VI Annex VII Annex VIII Annex IX Annex X IFPRI Mandate Terms of Reference EPR Panel Composition Documentation for the EPR Panel Chronology of Events for the EPR Panel List of Persons and Officials Met by the EPR Panel List of Instit-rtions Collaborating with IFPRI List of On-gc,ing IFPRI Projects List of Publications from 1985-1990 List of Acronyms xxxi MAYOR RECOMMENDATIONS We find IFPRI to be a dynamic and productive research institute. Most of its staff is of high quality and its research and outreach relevant to the needs of developing countries. We commend IFPRI for its large number of collaborative research arrangements with developing country institutions and for the policy impacts which its work has already produced. Our general recommendation is that IFPRI is definitely worthy of continued support for its activities as appropriately restructured and should receive increased CGIAR support for its proposed work on the environment. A large number of specific recommendations, suggestions and comments has been made in the report. Tile recommendations have been recapitulated in Chapter 7, but we present here what we consider to be the major ones. We recommend that: The IFPRI Board and management proceed promptly with the task of developing a strategic plan in consultation with IFPRI’ s staff, other stakeholders and partners. The Food Data Evaluation Programme should be phased out and the research fellows in this programme reallocated as appropriate to other programmes, A primary data bank that archives IFPRI’ s household surveys needs to be organized with assistance from a data management expert and core funding support The Food Production Policy Programme should be subdivided into two programmes with maximum internal disciplinary homogeneity, possibly along the lines of farm management and public goods. The Agricultural Growth Linkages Programme should be redefined amd renamed “Development Strategies” and focus its research on the main themes that pertain to the role of agriculture in economic development. The current organizational approach to Research Areas coordination should be abandoned, but the efforts at syntheses in the form of edited books should be thoroughly redesigned and pursued. The Institute should reinforce its outreach and developing country capacity-building in policy research according to a well-defined strategy. These activities should be professionqlly managed by the Director of Outreach. In-service training through collaborative research should be continued. Training should be broadened to include more formal teaching in policy research, particularly through short courses based on IFPRI’ s research materials. A Deputy Director General for Research and Development should be appointed. A position should be created for a Director of Outreach who would be responsible for training, information and external relations. xxx; i A Senior Management Committee and a Research Committee should be created and explicit procedures established for personnel reviews. IFPRI should introduce an annual internal review process, including in-depth examination of part of the Institute’ s research and outreach activities. IFPRI should create a new programme entitled “Natural Resources and the Environment” and immediately establish two staff positions, including a Natural Resources Eclonomist as Programme Director. IFPRI should reformulate its environmental policy research agenda in close collaboration with other agencies. 1.1 Recent Developments at IFPRI The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) is probably going through the most difficult period in its 15year history. A new Board Chairperson, a new Institute Director, and a new Director of Development and Administration are in place. While those who are closely associated with IFPRI were no doubt aware of the tension that had been building up in recent years, the nature and timing of the changes still came as a surprise to the Board and the staff. The abrupt replacements of the Board Chairperson and the Institute Director have caused uncertainty and some anxiety among the staff. A sense of urgency is apparent. But while these developments will provide a challenge to the new management, we expect that the end result will be improved opportunities for the Institute. Therefore the timing of the External Programme and Management Reviews should prove to have been opportune. Notwithstanding the rather unfortunate turn of events, we have found the staff determined to weather the storm, supportive of the new Director and solidly behind the mission and mandate of IFPRI. The research continues to yield good results, relatively uninterrupted by these developments. To the best of our knowledge none of the senior research fellows has expressed a wish to leave IFPRI; indeed, some outstanding former senior research fellows have indicated that they would be glad to come back to IFPRI if invited to do so. We see great hope and expectations in a re-vitalised IFPRI. This makes it imperative to settle the leadership and management issues as soon as possible. The Reviews have been conducted in the spirit of assisting this re-vitalization following two central themes: enhancement of the quality and policy relevance of IFPRI’ s research and outreach; and the definition of a system of governance based on the principles of transparency and participation. 12 Need for Police Research in the CXXAR A policy environment favourable to increased agricultural productivity and the equitable distribution of its benefits is necessary for the attainment of the mission and goals of the CGIAR. Consequently, it is important that the CGIAR should endeavor to develop the means for helping countries to formulate national food and agricultural policies that enhance technological progress, optimize the utilization of the resource base, and facilitate changes in production, trade, and consumption patterns in ways that better satisfy the needs of developing countries. Future policy research in the CGIAR should be directed largely towards identifying policies and strategies for developing countries that facilitate the generation, diffusion and utilization of improved technologies to increase the productivity of agriculture, fisheries and forestry in ways that promote the sustainable use of natural resources and improve the well-being of low-income people. IPPRI is the lead Institute in the CGIAR system for food policy research. it is expected to complement the work 2 of the other IARCs. TAC considers that policy research in the CGIAR should emphasize issues of transnational concern. 13 IFPRI’ s Mandate and Its Interpretation There was general recognition, from the inception of the CGIAR, that microeconomic research at the commodity-orientated centres could not adequately address policy issues through the work of centre economists. Equally important was the understanding that sector-wide and macro-economic issues were not appropriate topics for research at those centres. Discussions in TAC and the CGIAR eventually led to the establishment of IFPRI in 1975 under the sponsorship of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and IDRC. After further review and consideration by TAC and the CGIAR, IFPRI was invited to join the CGIAR system in November 1979. On this occasion, the CGIAR asked the Board of Trustees of IFPRI to revise the mandate in order to highlight the Institute’ s emphasis on problems of developing countries and on collaboration with their national institutions (see Annex I). A recent intensive examination of the mandate by a broadly representative group of IFPRI staff and consultants found it to be still appropriate. By the time the CGIAR considers the second EPR of IFPRI, it will have made decisions on the proposed expansion of the CGIAR system to include, inter alia, forestry, fisheries and irrigation manageme:nt. TAC has recommended a new mission statement and expanded goals for the CGIAR. If the CGIAR endorses the new mission statement and goals, the current implicit (CGIAR emphasis on food self-sufficiency will be broadened to encompass food self-reliance. These developments will have significant implications for the future role of IFPRI and its activities. IFPRI is expected to play a major role in an expanded CGIAR. In the last six years the interpretation of the mandate and research activities at IFPRI have evolved in response to changing needs and perceptions of the problems faced by developing countries. A major research thrust has been organized on the problems of agricultural stagnation and poverty in Africa. IFPRI has expanded its activities to include policy issues relating to the environmental aspects of agricultural development with respect to surface irrigation systems in India, rainfed farming systems in WANA, deforestaltion in Nepal, and agricultural settlement in the Western Amazon& Basin. Further, the Institute has developed a proposal for a new research thrust on environmental policy for sustainable agricultural development. The research themes proposed will broaden IFPRI’ s mandate beyond the food and agricultural sector. 1.4 Some Asue& of IFPRI’ s Evolution The Institute has been in existence for 15 years and has an impressive record of scientific achievements. The present number of IFPRI senior research staff is 37. Senior management personnel comprise 6 people. The total number of staff at IFPRI management and administrative personnel, research fellows, research assistants, secretaries and support staff - has increased from 50 in 1978 to 134 in 1990. During the 1980’ s, the number of published pages per IFPRI researcher increased by about 9% per annum inclusive of research reports, abstracts, annual reports, working papers, grey papers, reprints, food policy statements, books and brochures. 3 In 1980, the first year of IFPRI’ s membership in the CGIAR, total funding was $2.46 million, which included $67 thousand for special projects. By the time of the 19S4 EPR 70% of IFPRI’ s funds were unrestricted. Since then, the rate of growth of restricted and special projects funding has outpaced that of unrestricted funding. Unrestricted funding accounted for about 59% of IFPRI’ s total funding in 1989, and is projected to comprise only 54% of the total in 1990. With respect to the programme of work, there have been three significant stages in its development. The first phase was between 1975 and 1984, during which the Institute concentrated on building a reputable, high-quality research base. A total of 47 research reports were produced. The second phase was between 1984 and 1989, when IFPRI embarked on extensive collaboration with national research institutions and policy makers in developing countries as a means of influencing food policy decisions. The number of institutions collaborating with IFPRI increased from 26 in 1984 to 75 in 1959. During phase two, another 32 reports were published, bringing the total number of published research reports since 1975 to 79. Phase three has just begun. IFPRI, in association with its research collaborators, is endeavouring to see its research results used more effectively by those who make national and international food policy decisions. The mechanism for doing this is largeiy through an enhanced programme of policy seminars. 1.5 Fit EPR Recommendations and WFW’ s Response The iFirstEPR made 41 specific recommendations, suggestions, and comments in relation to IFPRI’ s research and related activities. There were eight major recommendations that required consideration by IFPRI: establishing a separate Development Strategies Programme; renaming the “Trends’ programme; establishing two core-funded positions for IFPRI regional co-ordinators to be based in S.E.Asia and Africa; preparing biennially a review of agricultural and food policy for presentation to the CGIAR; appointing an anthropologist and a political scientist to its core staff; increasing the number of core staff positions from 17 to 21; retaining its headquarters location in Washington D.C.; - not to be directly involved in the process of determining resource allocation within the CGIAR system. In response to these recommendations IFPRI created a new programme called “Agricultural Growth Linkages” and a research area designated “Development Strategies”. It re-named the Trends Programme as the “Food Data Evaluation Programme”. IFPRI has not, however, broadened its cadre of social scientists amongst 4 the senior staff, nor has it appointed regional co-ordinators in S.E.Asia and in Africa. However, it has outposted staff to IRRI in the Philippines, ICRISAT in Bulawayo, and IFDC in Togo in support of its research projects. All these positions are funded from special projects. The Institute has also taken action on most of the suggestions made by the EPR Panel. With respect to the proportion of core funds relative to special funding, the EPR Panel had suggested that less than 20% of the Institute’ s eventual senior researich staff should be on special project funding at any given time. The Board later increased this limit to 50%. IPresently 46% of IFPRI’ s financial resources come from special projects. Some of the programmes are even more heavily dependent on special project funding. For instance, the Food Consumption and Nutrition Programme derives 69% of its funding from special projects. This is likely to be a common feature of IFPRI’ s research activities for as long as the Institute continues to engage in large bilateral projects. CGL4R funds are used mainly for salaries of the core staff and for administrative support. Notwithstanding the high proportion of special projects, IFPRI research staff claim that donor influence has not significantly diverted the Institute’ s research from its own priorities and objectives. However, there has been less flexibility with respect to the selection of countries in which special projects are located. In addition, high dependency on soft money raises fundamental questions of efficiency in research, equity in ;appointments, and sustainability of the research effort. These questions will need to be addressed. 1.6 Terms of Reference for the Second EPR The EPR Panel was charged to make a thorough and independent appraisal of IFPRI’ s research and related activities, and to transmit a report to the Chairman of TAC. The topics listed in the Terms of Reference (Annex II) include assessingthe mandate of the Institute, its strategy, programmes, and the manner in which the research is organize:d and managed. The EPR Panel is also expected to review the mechanisms and processes being used by the Institute, such as peer reviews, to ensure the scientific quality of the staff and relevance of the programmes. Further, the Pane.1 was asked to review the extent to which IFPRI collaborates with other institutions within and outside the CGIAR and to assessits achievements and impact. Finally, the Panel is expected to evaluate new research initiatives, and assessthe adequacy of the facilities and resources available to the Institute in relation to current and future scale of activities. 1.7 Conduct of the Second EPR TAC commissioned the EPR in June 1989. The Chairman and members of the Panel were selected by TAC after consultations with the Director of IFPRI (see Annex III for Panel composition). Details of the review programme were also agreed upon with the management of IFPRI. CGIAR members were invited to contribute to the list of specific questions submitted to the EPR. In February 1990, both the EPR and External Management Review (EMR) Panel members participated in the annual Board of Trustees meeting in Paris in order to discuss the objectives and plans for the External Review. Panel members received 5 comprehensive briefing documents from IFPRI (Annex IV) and visited selected countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America between February and May 1990. The itinerary allowed some Panel members to observe research projects undertaken by IFPRI in cohaboration with national institutions and to discuss the nature and scope of co-operation with national policy makers and policy analysts. The chronology of main events for the EPR is shown in Annex V and the list of persons and/or officials met by the EPR Panel in Annex VI. Responses to a letter sent to other CGIAR centres collaborating with IFPRI, and the results of a questionnaire sent by TAC to a wide cross-section of institutions in developing countries, have been incorporated into the view-points expressed by the Panel in this Report. The EPR is not expected to conduct a detailed scientific examination of all aspects of IFPRI’ s research programmes. Rather, its purpose is to review the Institute’ s current and future goals, research strategies and priorities, and to assesstheir concordance with those of the CGIAR and the stated objectives of the programmes. The review is intended to assessthe nature and scope of IFPRI’ s collaborative activities’ and the balance, achievements, and impact of the programmes. The structure of the Report reflects the charge to the EPR. This first chapter has reviewed the role of IFPRI in the CGIAR system, its mandate and evolution, and the actions taken in response to the first EPR and presents the Terms of Reference for the current review. The Report then deals with the framework of IFPRI’ s research (Chapter 2)’ followed by an assessmentof: the research programmes (Chapter 3); the collaborative research activities with other IARCs and with national institutions and other forms of outreach (Chapter 4); and the organization and management of research (Chapter 5). Finally, the Panel considers future research opportunities and directions for IFPRI in the environmental policy area (Chapter 6). An overall assessment, summary and recommendations are provided in Chapter 7. 6 CHAPTER 2 - OVERALL FRAMEWORK OF IFPRI’ S RESEARCH 21 IFPRI’ s Vision of the Future and Strategic Plan Strategic planning logically begins with an assessmentof the current status and trends of change in lcey variables, such as food production, consumption and income, and the prevalence of poverty and malnutrition. Also to be assessedare such factors as the quantity and qua.lity of resources (people, natural endowments and inputs) devoted1 to food and agricultural production, the prevailing state of agricultural technology, and the current policies, national and international, impinging on the food and agricultural sector. This analysis allows the research institution to develop a vision of the future of, say, the next ten or twenty years, and to plan a strategy to address the most significant topics among the many legitimate claimants for research attention. Governmental policy-making has to do with the identification of bottlenecks and opportunities that impinge on growth, sustainability and poverty, and the design of feasible policy alternatives to enhance performance according to these three criteria. Analysis of the probable impact of alternative policies is dependent upon solid research that helps to define lthe problem/issue, explores the processes that affect outcomes, estimates likely costs and benefits, and identifies losers and gainers. Because predictability is less than perfect, a policy-oriented research strategy is, of necessity, a dynamic, changing and frequently adjusted plan in which monitoring and evaluation of implemented policies is used as a feed-back to modify the research focus from time to time. IFPRI has not enunciated a formal research strategy in the past. It has had a long-term research plan (for the period 1982-92) said to be based on consensus about what it should do, governed by the mandate approved by the Board of Trustees. The Institute has had, as well, a plan for its own development, its administrative arrangements, and its outreach. The 1984 EPR Panel, viewing the large number of seemingly disparate research projects in the IFPRI portfolio, explored the question of whether or not there was “an over-arching stratem to IFPRI’ s attack.” Reviewers found that there was a “strong framework and an evolving strategy” based on a consensus among the Board, directors, staff and col1aborato.t-sas to IFPRI’ s mandate, and were confident that the strategic framework would be more apparent over time. That prediction remains to be fulfilled. Nevertheless’ IFPRI has developed a medium-term research plan for the period 1988-92 which reflects its assessmentof what it considers to be important for the Institute in light of tlhe evolving world food situation. As compared to IFPRI’ s 1982 long-term research plan, the current medium-term plan shifted the focus of agricultural production and consumption studies to employment, income and alleviation of poverty:; it added an emphasis on trade patterns and macro policies; and it targeted Africa for special attention. Within this still-broad scope of work, some activities have been designated “essential” and others “desirable”, but the supporting analysis that led to these designations is largely undocumented. 7 IFPRI began the process of formulating a strategic plan in preparation for the second EPR. The Institute undertook a comprehensive self-study and brought in consultants to review and advise on the research programmes and on organizational effectiveness. A strategic plan was then drafted by the Director. It was submitted to the Board of Trustees for discussion at their February 1990 meeting. IFPRI management was asked to revise the strategy document in light of comments made by the Board. As this was not done in time for the Executive and Finance Committee meeting in May 1990, that Committee directed that the indicated revisions to the plan should be made, a draft circulated for comments to key collaborators, and the draft and commentaries sent to the. full Board for further review. We have been presented with a revised draft but we understand that this draft has not received the wider circulation suggested and is to be considered by the Board at some future date. It is our impression that many elements of this preliminary strategy will remain unchanged in a final plan. The future envisioned by IFPRI in the draft document is optimistic, perhaps more a hoped-for ideal than a fully objective projection. The vision is premised on the achievement of growth rates in the developing countries comparable to those of the 1960s and 197Os,with growth being led importantly by development of the agricultural sector. The great problems to be tackled - and solved if the vision is to become reality are seen to be population growth, poverty, urbanization and environmental degradation’ The paper acknowledges the possibility of a global recession which would command a very different research strategy, one emphasizing redistributive policies and deemphasizing issues of trade and commercialization. While the draft strategic plan for IFPRI is developed from the optimistic vision - essentially unconstrained by questions of time-span, of national diversity in the pace and character of structural transformation, of political stability, and of global events - to the extent that research is concerned with understanding processes, its products should have applicability even if the optimistic vision proves to be wrong. The strategic plan begins with food supply and poverty issues, consistent with the CGIARS goal and objectives. Poverty alleviation is seen to require growth of a suitable kind, population and urbanization problems are seen as outcomes of poverty and misguided or unguided development strategies, food supply and security as dependent on technological advances in agriculture and adequate policy; environmental degradation is seen as having its root causes in poverty and unchanneled development; and successful development is seen as raising new macropolicy issues, notably trade and capital and other resource flows. These considerations lead to concentration of IFPRI’ s research in four areas: development strategy, technology policy, poverty alleviation, and environmental policy. Because the problems to be faced are most formidable in Subsaharan Africa, this region is to receive special attention. The draft strategic plan stops short of setting priorities between or within the research areas. Neither does the document advise us as to its process for doing so. Two programmes are given special notice and, by inference, priority. These are programmes in trade and macroeconomic policy, and environmental policy. The plan put forward for its own institutional development indicates that IFPRI has developed its capacity for “viable, respectable, rigorous useful research” and 8 established “a wide range of collaborations...in developing countries.” It envisions now moving into a policy-impact phase, experimenting with ways its research can better assist national and international policy-making. The method of achieving this goal is not described. 22 Current Activities at JFPRI Research at IFPRI falls under five administrative programmes, namely, Food Production Policy, A.gricultural Growth Linkages, Food Data Evaluation, Food Consumption and Nutrition Policy, and International Food Trade and Food Security. The research programmes are broadly conceived and each is headed by a programme director. Projects constitute the basic unit of research. There are about 51 projects in progress - 19 in production, 10 in consumption and nutrition, 9 in international food trade and food security, 5 in agricultural growth linkages and 15 in food data evaluation (see Annex VII). Most of the projects are country-specific but some span a group of countries or a region,. A project generally originates with a staff member and it usually is allocated to the programme to which the individual belongs. There is no institutional mechanism for collective ex ante decision on priority research topics, or on the desirable mix of projects to be undertaken by IFPRI staff. The projects are intended to address major policy questions in the food and agricultural sector, with particular emphasis on five research areas - technology policy, development strategies, poverty alleviation, Africa, and food aid. According to IFPRI’ s medium-term and budget plan for 1988-92, the research areas are the main vehicle for resource allocation. The disciplinary resources in the administrative progralmmes are supposed to be allocated to the research areas and projects. Priority res,earch themes under each research area have been stated in the Institute’ s medium-term programme and budget plan. The list of priority topics for each research area is up-dated and refined annually. However, it is not clear how the programmes contribute in the selection of priority research topics, or how the Institute ensures that projects reflect those priorities. The research fellows have a significant sa:y in the choice of projects; the Director determined whether or not these were seen to be relevant to the mission and objectives of IFPRI. This and other issues are discussecl and commented upon later in the Report. IFPRI undertakes most of its research in partnership with national as well as international institutions. It has an impressive number of collaborating institutions in developing countries (Annex VIII). Most of IFPRI’ s involvement in capacity building at the national level occurs through this type of collaboration, and through its conferences, policy seminars and policy briefs. Training is not a formal activity at IFPRI. In this regard there is a sharp contrast between the IFPRI approach and that of other CGIAR Centres. 9 23 Assessment IFPRI needs to have a strategic plan. Its mandate is so broad that almost nothing in the policy arena is fully excluded from its potential purview. There is much important policy research to be done. The problem is how to narrow the field. We suggest that the process of developing IFFRI’ s strategic plan begin with examination of alternative scenarios about what lies ahead for world food and agriculture in the next few decades. Analysis of trends based on different assumptions may lead to different predictions. The planning task is to formulate a strategy that will optimize returns to research across the range of likely scenarios. The strategic plan must take account of the broader international research environment, the changing needs and capacities of IFPRI’ s clients, the Institute’ s role and obligation as a part of a reorganized and expanded CGIAR system, and the availability of resources needed for high-quality research. It must assessits own comparative advantage in relation to all of these factors. We recommend that the IFPRI Board and management proceed expeditiously to develop a strategic plan in consultation with IFPRI’ s staff, other stakeholders, and partners. In addition to setting out the strategy, the plan should identify a process by which the strategy may be adjusted over time to take account of altered circumstances. It must also give guidance on how priorities are to be decided w’ thin the sccpe of the strategic plan as a guide to scund implementation. 10 CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH PRQGRAMMES ANASSESSMENT AND APPROACHES 3.1 Research Promammes Research was reviewed by programmes since this is the way it is organized administratively. However, because programme coordination has often been weak and because projects tend to cut across programmes, we have also focused on a selected subset of projects within each programme from which to derive general recommendations for the improvement of the future research effort. Table 3.1 shows the number of on-going projects and projected resource allocation for 19% by programme and source of funding. Table 3.1 - N&r of on-going projects and resource allocation (1990 projected) Total (Prog.) Non Program Research, Research support 8 A&in.* 6 3,379 5,710 1 12,452 I 54 = * includes rescwrce services, cgputer operations. support for director’ s discretionary fund, external relations, information services, library and overall institute actministration and office 3.1.1 ml Data Evaluation Programme This programme was one of the initial reasons for IFPRI’ s existence and its function is explicitly mentioned in the Institute’ s mandate. It delivered some of the influential early research reports on the world food situation. It has gradually been reduced in size when IFPRI broadened its mandate as questions regarding the objectivity of existing data sets, which were important in the context of the aftermath of the world food crisis, became a 11 secondary issue. It currently incorporates two research fellows, two visiting research fellows, one consultant and three research assistants. The Programme derives 77% of its funding from the unrestricted core budget (Table Xl), suggesting the public goods nature of its research. It has three thrusts that are unrelated and are consequently discussed separately in what follows: a data bank management; a trends-projections analysis programme; and IFPRI’ s work on China. Some of the recent research achievements in the trends-projections area include a major study of trends and prospects for cassava in seven Asian and African countries, a study of India’ s foodgrain production and c;rnsumption trends, a study of postharvest rice losses in Indonesia, and a study of supply and demand prospects for barley in the Middle East and North Africa. The 1984 EPR questioned the duplication of efforts in IFPRI’ s data work with that of other institutions as well as some of the methodologies used, but concluded that a redirected Data Evaluation Programme remained essentiai and that it should focus on countries with the greatest data problems (i.e., in Africa) and on the high-risk social groups. The 1989 internal review suggested a focus on “key country studies” for which country profiles would be developed. We find that these suggestions are unsatisfactory and recommend instead that the Food Data Evaluation Programme, having fulfilled its mandate of the time in a fully satisfactory manner, be phased out and that the valuable functions among those that it currently carries out be reallocated to benefit other IFPRI programmes. These functions include the in-house service role of the Programme in managing a data bank; special country, regional, or global assessmentsof the food situation when needed; and country-wide reviews of the state of food policy. The data bank managed by the Programme includes the FAQ USDA, WB, and IMF tapes organized in a retrievable form. Because these tapes are updated annually by their sponsoring institutions, no data collection is demanded at IFPRI for this purpose. Effective retrieval systems for these four data sets are also available at the World Bank and IICA (Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation). The role of the Programme has been to make subsets of these data available to the rest of IFPRI on request. This is an important function since it has clear economies of scale. It can however be fulfilled at low cost by strengthening the capacity of the Computer Services Unit which is currently managing this data base. A data management expert would be appointed and made responsible for the maintenance and updating of these data and serve as an IFPRI-wide consultant for their use. An effort has recently been made to organize a data bank that accumulates the primary household level data collected by IFPRI. This is a very important enterprise as IFPRI is rapidly accumulating highly valuable and expensive survey data that need to be preserved beyond project life and made available to the broader research community. Preparing this data base in a usable fashion is a major enterprise, the cost and difficulty of which should not be underestimated. Contractors are usually disinclined to fund this type of activity and projects typically run out of time and money before this public service is fulfilled. We suggest that core funding would be well used in this task and a special appropriation should be made to support it. 12 We also suggest that the Institute employ or secure the services of an in-house consultant in statistical and econometric techniques who would advise and assist all programmes. Most of IFPRI’ s work is of a quantitative nature and frequently calls upon sophisticated methodologies for sampling design, hypothesis testing, and the measurement of economic relations. These methodologies are evolving very rapidly and few applied economists have full command of them. Our reading of IFPRI’ s empirical research is that it is generally solid but oftlen falls short of using the best statistical and econometric techniques currently available. At a marginal cost, addition of such an expert (who could be on a part time basis or available on call) could thus greatly enhance the scientific value of IFPRI’ s research. Here again, there are clear economies of scale in providing this service in a centralized fashion. Trends analysis is a misnomer in that it tends to understate the research content of the exercises involved and makes it appear to be a mechanistic exercise. The analysis of data sets is not done in lthe abstract of hypotheses that emanate from economic analysis. As the 1984 EPR and the 1989 internal review correctly point out, projections should be related to price effects and to policy responses. As a result, the analysis of trends, such as the demand for horticultural. imports by Japan and the supply and demand of feedgrains in the: Asian countries, should lbe placed in the trade or production programmes. The work on China is of great importance and IFPRI has been able to provide unique expertise on this country to other CG centers and to international organizations, as well as to advise Chinese research institutions on their awn programmes. It was initially loeated in the Data Programme because lack of information on China made it largely a data intelligence exercise. This phase is now over and it is clear that future China work will require a high level of professional performance as the field becomes more competitive. The internal review recommended that the China research effort be given a sharper focus on specific research themes. The area of technological change was selected as the current thrust and future work is proposed to focus on the important topic of rural poverty. We strongly encourage these research projects and suggest that the work would greatly benefit from close interactions with other IFPRI researchers in the Production programme where it should be relocated. The great advantage for IFPRI of having an area specialist in residence is that, in addition to carrying sustained research, he/she can readily be available to participate im debates on current policy reforms in China, a type of involvement in which at least some IFPRI staff should be more involved. The proposal that the Food Data Evaluation Programme engage in the development of country profiles for “key country studies” has meaning as they could serve as background documents for the organization of high level country or regional seminars for broad policy reviews. We feel, however, that it is the senior policy analysts who will run these seminars that need to engage individually in the preparation of these documents. The suggested background papers have only a small mechanical component and require a skillful and personalized understanding of the policy processes at work in that country or region. Consequently, we do nolt believe that a service unit can go very far in that direction. These documents will have to be prepared within the programmemes where the IFPRI senior policy analysts involved are located, using, as one source of information, selected subsets of the data bank provided by the Computer Setvices Unit. 13 3.1.2 Food Production Policy ProPramme The Food Production Poliicy Programme is the largest of the Institute’ s programmes, both in terms of staff, and number and size of projects conducted. This is logical, given the primary orientation of the CGIAR towards enhancing the production of food in developing countries, and the existence of many obstacles of an economic and social nature in these countries that slow down technology adoption and progress in agriculture. Only 33% of the total operational budget comes from unrestricted core (Table 3.1). The principal objective of this programme is to help accelerate the pace of growth of foodcrops production, but with due consideration also to objectives of stability in prices, sttpply and employment and of equity in distribution of benefits of growth. Clearly, these additional objectives cannot all be addressed by this programme, but they variously enter all of IFPRI’ s research as it aims to alleviate poverty and malnutrition. This programme has been fairly productive and has maintained generally high standards of quality. The selection of research projects shows a clear concern with the problems of small farmers and the rural poor, as befits the mandate of the Institute. This is particularly evident in the work conducted in Africa. The choice of topics and analytical approaches demonstrates imagination and technical competence by the programme’ s researchers. The programme has been very successful also in obtaining special project funding to expand its research substantially in the last five years. The programme is very broad and diverse in its coverage, which is understandable since it includes the usual sub-fields of production, marketing, price policy and public goods within agricultural economics. The use of sector-wide conceptual models, or large sets of detailed household level data also determine that some of the research done within the programme overlaps with that of the other IFPRI programmes. Because of its breadth, the programme is neither sharply focussed on clear-cut priority issues nor is it tightly tied together so as to take maximum advantage of close programme staff collaboration. There may be scope for some restructuring of its activities (as is suggested elsewhere in this Report), in the context of an institute-wide readjustment of programmes and staff so as to bring about greater coherence. The programme’ s research coverage has been fairly stable over time, maintaining an emphasis throughout on the analysis of strategic production inputs (fertilizer, irrigation water) and of resource allocation to research and price policies. However, some major shifts have also taken place. In fact, an earlier topic that received much attention was the question of yield and production variability which has now been largely phased out. On the other hand, an area mainly concerned with production and income strategies of small farmers (particularly in Africa) is now commanding a major share of the programme’ s resources. Also, in response to the 1984 EPR recommendations, the research concerned with “growth Iinkages” was separated from production and set up as another programme. More recently, a new area of focus dealing with agricultural resources and the environment has been added. Thus, the programme has shown flexibility and responsiveness to changing perceptions of priority issues, as well as to donor agencies’and developing country demands, while retaining its major lines of research of a long run nature. The geographic distribution of programme activities is quite uneven, with strong emphasis on Sub-saharan Africa. More than half of the research staff (core and special project funding) is devoted to this region; about l/3 to Asia; and the rest to Latin America 14 and specifically Brazil. This distribution reflects in good part the CGIAR directed prioriti’ es and the larger availability of special project funds for Africa, given the slow progress of agriculture and the urgent problems of malnutrition and poverty in that region. It is to be noted that virtually no work has been done neither in North Africa and the Middle East nor in the numerous small-and-poor island countries (e.g. in the Caribbean and the South Pacific) that have peculiar and severe agricultural policy problems, with no professional capacity to tackle them. Conversely, relatively large attention has been devoted to India, which is a country with very significant experience and domestic capacity in the agricultural policy field. In other words, in future some redressing of the regional distribution of the programme activities would be advisable. Notwithstanding the wide range of policy problems covered, the programme’ s research activities may be conveniently grouped for purposes of presentation and discussion in four major categories (not sub-programmes, as they are not functionally carried out in group or team fashion), as follows: (a> 04 (c) technology infrastructure and inputs price policies and incentives resource allocation and production strategies (4 It must be noted, however, that within these categories the various projects address, in indirect or secondary ways many other important policy issues such as the role of institutions, land size and tenure, labour productivity and employment, and agricultural credit, which otherwise merit being singled out as principal lines of research. Indeed, institutional arrangements related to land tenure, communal village facilities, etc. seem to be of major significance for the modernization of agriculture in Africa, and they cannot be avoided in IFPRI’ s research, despite the sensitivity of the subject, as already pointed out by the previous EPR. (4 Technology. The programme has given high priority to the analysis of agricultural research and re:lated resource allocation issues, as well as to assessmentof the diffusion and impact of new technologies in several developing countries. This is appropriate, given the crucial role of technological innovation in accelerating the production of food at lower cost, and given the central concern of the CGIAR with technology generation. The programme shows at least ten completed and on-going projects focussing on this area of research. Continuing earlier work, review studies have been done: on the agricultural research experiences of countries such as Nepal (RR62) and others in Africa, and an evaluation of the impact of research in Bangladesh (RR67). For these sorts of studies, closer collaboration with ISNAR would be convenient, with IFPRI contributing the economic and policy analysis to the otherwise management-oriented reports by ISNAR. Of greater interest are the projects concerned with assessingthe productivity of agricultural research and factors that determine it; and projects analyzing rates of adoption of new technologies by farmers so as to better understand the conditions affecting adoption. A major study was completed in collaboration with ACIAR, which developed a complex quantitative model for evaluating the benefits of research, including international spillover effects, and determining criteria for resource allocation in agricultural research. Current projects on research and technology concentrate on selected African countries and Brazil. The latter are especially noteworthy as they involve pioneering econometric methodology to assessshifts in product and input composition by agroecological zones; to explain farmers’ decision-making in a whole-farm framework; and to evaluate research productivity at the institutional level. These studies promise to make important contributions for the improvement of national research policy making. Several short articles and working documents have been published on these projects and in due course should be made available as major IFPRI reports. Infrastructure and inputs. The importance of rural infrastructure (roads, communications, marketing services, etc.) for the adoption of new technologies, expansion of food production and for its linkage effects has been keenly investigated by IFPRI, mainly through careful data summarization and interpretation, for selected Asian and African countries. From the evidence obtained, the Institute takes a strong policy view favouring larger public investment in infrastructure. However, caution is warranted, because the studies concerned are partial analyses in which the opportunity costs of public funds and the public finance implications have not been fully taken into consideration. The principal emphasis however under this programme research area is placed on irrigation and fertilizers. Six major projects on irrigation, mainly in Asia are reported for the last five-year period, with aspects of water use and policy coming under other studies as well. The large incidence of irrigated agriculture in food production and the crucial complementary nature of water with other inputs, such as improved seeds and fertilizers justify a strong concern with irrigation water policies. The research looks into questions of irrigation system management, efficiency of delivery systems, pricing policies and investment strategies. IFPRI research has highlighted the marked decline in public investment in Asia in the past decade, and has shown the grave consequences of this for future food production through quantitative projection models. The research is extended to explore alternative investment in rehabilitation versus new systems, large versus small schemes, the potential of traditional irrigation in Africa, etc. Although no major IFPRI research reports have yet been published on irrigation policies, we re told that IFPRI’ s research results have contributed to change in public investment policy in some Asian countries and international lending agencies. Fertilizer is the most critical input of modern agricultural technology, particularly with respect to small farmers as it is a land-saving device easily accessible to them. Yet, the evidence is that in most developing countries small farmers use much less fertilizer than would be warranted by crop response and price conditions. The Programme has thus devoted substantial efforts to research on demand, supply, delivery systems and government policies affecting fertilizer use, focussed on selected Asian countries but with increasing emphasis on Africa. Although this research is far from being exhaustive, particularly in regard to analysis of the factor demand side, it has led IFPRI to the conclusion that the major obstacle to greater use of fertilizer is due to supply constraints particularly associated to the delivery system. Government policy should therefore focus on increasing physical investment and stocks, and on institutions to assure adequate functioning of the production and distribution systems. 16 It is questionable however whether these results can be safely generalized to all the developing world, especially to countries with little government intervention in the input markets. No major research report or book has been published yet presenting results of fertilizer research, although many journal articles and other papers are available. cc, Price policies and incentives. Food and input price distortions brought about by market imperfections and misguided government policies are frequently a major problem obstructing agricultural progress in developing countries. The field is fraught with difficulties mainly because of conflicting ends among maintaining incentives to farmers, holding down food prices for the poor consumer groups, raising government revenues, and avoiding excessive food price fluctuations. IFPRI’ s Production Programme therefore correctly devotes substantial research effort to th’ e analysis and assessmentof price effects in commodity and input markets (in fact throughout all IFPRI programmes some aspects of price policies are analyzed). Collecting the relsults from several studies, IFPRI has edited a major book on Arrricultural Price Policy which received a prize from the American Agricultural Economics Association, and published studies on Rice Price Stabilization in Bangladesh (RR’ 72) and Wheat Policy in Brazil (RR66). These are very useful contributions in t.his area of research, although the book cannot be considered a complete or definitive work on the subject. In addition, several new projects are ongoing, especially in African countries and some in Asia, which have produced sever,al articles and shorter publications. Given the pervasive role of prices in market economies, research on price policies and incentives must be a permanent feature ot the Production Programme, It should however do more comprehensive price studies in sector-wide or economy-wide models. The programme’ s earlier substantial research on cereal production and price instability has served to minimize fears of the possible adverse role of new Green Revolution-type technologies on production stability. Earlier research on weatherrelated instability and risk was published in a book on Crop Insurance for Agricultural Development that is considered a definitive work on the subject. (4 Resource allocation and production strategies. The growing focus of the Production Programme on Africa has led to expanded research on the causes of stagnating foold production and on policies to accelerate growth with equity. Because of lack of adequate data, research on African countries requires large household surveys, which serve multiple an,alytic purposes beyond production issues. Three major studies and several smaller ones are underway, and one on Zaire (RR74) has been completed. These studies look at production issues concerning farmer behaviour in regard to investment in prolductivity-increasing inputs and technology, short-run cropping strategies, and labour allocation to non-farm activities, and analyze the influence of policies, infrastructure, research, etc. on farmers’ decisions. This research is helping to dispel certain myths and is providing good insights and understanding about traditional, small farmer agriculture in Africa. The collection of large data sets is extremely valuablle and will permit to extend research in many directions - especially consumption and nutrition, local trade and linkages. Many partial publications have already resulted f;rom this work and a book, Accelerating Food Production in Subsaharan Africa has been edited, collecting the work of several researchers, which provides a useful “stock taking” of the situation in the region. This general research 17 area promises to make significant contributions for the improvement of agricultural policy-making in Africa in the coming years. Besides the four main research thrusts discussed so far, the Production Programme has recently initiated research on environmental issues, through a joint study with GIAT in the Peruvian Amazon. This study could serve as a pilot project for future IFPRI work on environmental policy, as discussed in Chapter 6. In sum, the Production Programme has accomplished a good deal of sound research, but it is too h&erogenous and diffuse at present. We recommend that this programme be subdivided into two parts, using as the criterion for the chosen split the maximization of disciplinary homogeneity within each program. We do not want to predetermine the outcome of this split, but suggest that one possibility is to separate out in a new programme the topics concerned with public goods and services and public finance for agriculture (technology, large irrigation schemes, roads and communications, extension, etc.) which could become a new programme in “Public Goods and Services”. The purely Production Programme would concentrate on farm management economics and agricultural price analysis as its central research themes, studying product and factor markets within this context, and not viewing the latter merely as constraints. Other splits have been suggested to us by members of the Production Programme and this should be resolved in full consultation with them. Not to presume the outcome of these consultations, we refer to these two programmes as Production 1 and Production 2 in the rest of this Report. In either case, the analysis of institutions (i.e., legal, social and other contractual arrangements) should receive greater specific attention, in reference to situations where the market fails to function properly (especially important in the African context). Finally, we notice that the range of research productivity across staff members seems to be excessively wide, with the programme housing several star performers but also some others with insufficient research output. As new procedures for personnel reviews are implemented, we recommend that in this programme, as in all others, a hard look be given at performance for the renewal of contracts, particularly at a time when new positions will be have to be created for the new programmes and research thrust recommended in this review. 3.1.3 APricultural Growth Linkages Programme This is a small programme, which was established in 1984 in response to a recommendation of the previous EPR. The programme is heavily dependent on unrestricted core funding (Table 3.1). The EPR Report argued that the growth linkages analysis that was then being carried out under the Production Programme needed sharper focus, better coordination and that it “should be considered as one component of the Institute-wide interprogramme research on overall development strategy”. The new programme would look beyond linkages in production and would include work on intersectorial linkages, public goods issues, and macroeconomic policies. The programme was formed on the basis of the production programme projects and staff concerned with this topic. Unfortunately the new programme’ s mandate “... to investigate the role of technological change in agriculture in contributing to economic growth ...” was set too broad and indistinct from the overall responsibilities of IFPRI, 18 thereby creating confusion from the start. The subsequent departure of key members of the original research staff most concerned with the issue of linkages as such in agricultural growth, determined a slhift towards other topics, with an apparent diffusion of the main research thrust. This programme thus seems to lack a clear, central concept around which to build projects that seek a coherent, cumulative process of understanding of the nature and role of linkages in agricultural development. The regional distribution of research is broad and includes country studies in Asia, Africa and Latin Ameriica, with relative intensity decreasing in the same order. The research however tends to concentrate in few countries in each region, which is appropriate so that various research themes can be pursued simultaneously and permit a sounder analysis of the relationships involved. Because of substantial overlaps in research topics and countries studied with the Production and other programmes, it would be advantageous to establish closer collaboration with colleagues in these programmes, as has already been done for some projects. The fact that th.is programme is highly interdisciplinary (three of the five research fellows are non-economists) - which could be an asset from the standpoint of approaching a complex subject from different analytical perspectives - may actually aggravate the difficullty of formulating a sharply focussed and balanced research agenda if staff members do not interact with each other. Certainly a larger input of staff economists is needed to sharpen the programme’ s orientation towards its central theme, which should be the role of agriculture in economic: growth. On the other hand, it may be possible to reallocate some non-economist staff to other IFPRI programmes where their disciplinary specialization m,ay be better utilized in close collaboration with economist colleagues. The themes addressed by the programme broadly cover the following: (a) impact of new agricultural technology on production, employment, income and expenditure at the household level; (b) impact of remittances from migrants on development of the local economy; (c) impact of rural service infrastructure on growth of the regional economy; (cl) quantitative historical analysis of resource transfers in the national economy; and (e) humian capital accumulation and rural development. Major long-term projects are underway in all these subjects. Earlier studies have been completed on a micro region of India using a social accounting matrix to trace out the indirect growth effects of the Green Revolution, rural household use of services in India (RR48), agriculture and economic growth in Argentina (RR76), rural distribution of services in India, and others on linkage effects of rural infrastructure and impact of technology in various countries of Asia and Africa. On the whole, the programme has been productive and its research of good quality. A byproduct is the build up of important data sets which will be valuable for future research. Among on-going research projects, one on India that analyzes household level demand linkages is especially interesting, because of the potential for innovative econometric modelling based on longitudinal data from household surveys- Projects on Zambia and Zimbabwe focus mainly on the role of infrastructure and access to services in technology adoption by small farmers. Another project analyzes the effect of migrant worker remittances on a rural zone in Egypt which, having found that investment in new technology takes low priority, leads to an exploration of policy incentives to alter this behaviour of migrant households. A. study in Pakistan analyses the effect of education on rural labour allocation and productivity, with special attention to gender issues. Finally, macroeconomic 19 research on intersectoral resource transfers involves extending estimation of the econometric model developed for Argentina, with data for Chile, Thailand and Uruguay. This study evaluates the effectiveness of economic policies pursued historically by these countries. While each of the above projects is quite relevant to IFPRI’ s mandate and otherwise constitutes good research, they are mostly separate pieces of work and - except for the economic growth model - do not directly address the question of macroeconomic linkages and growth. Each could fit in other IFPRI programmes, with no apparent loss in staff collaboration and research efficiency. In this sense, the suggestion of the 1989 Internal Programme Review of periodical9y sketching out where the programme should go over the intermediate run, or having a sort of “master plan” to assessnew research opportunities, is eminently appropriate. Stress on exploiting possible complementarities in research is especially important in the case of this programme and should be pursued vigorously. This programme covers a very important policy field and should be retained by IFPRI, but its mandate or subject matter area must be revised and sharpened. The central theme of the programme should be the role of agriculture in economic growth, with clear focus on the longer-term dynamic relationships involved. The analysis of linkages is only one part of the problem; attention must be paid also to savings and investments, labour allocation, foreign exchange, etc. in relation to agricultural development. Issues of rural development should come under this programme as well. In order to better convey the nature and objectives of the programme, it would be advisable to change its title, perhaps to “Development Strategies” as was originally suggested by the previous EPR. The size of the programme in terms of staff and funding s,hould be slightly expanded. The particular staff composition for it, however, should be different than at present and depend on the new research agenda drawn up. Within that agenda and following the directions suggested here we would recommend concentration on few topics which should be well defined in relation to programme objectives. 3.1.4 Food Consumption and Nutrition Policv Programme This is the second largest of IFPRI’ s programmes and the research results which it has delivered have attracted significant attention. It is also the one that appears to have the greatest degree of internal coherence. This has been due, over the years, to strong programme director leadership and to effective interactions among its members. Effectiveness of these programme-level interactions around a relatively well defined common research orientation demonstrates the validity of the discipline-based programme structure for the evolving of a commonly shared set of priorities, professional interactions, accountability, and the delivery of research results. The FCNP research staff includes the director and 9 other research fellows (two of whom are half-time), 2 research analysts, 7 research assistants and student interns during the summer. Only four senior positions receive core funding for 31% of the programme’ s total operational budget. There has been no increase in this staff category since 1984 and relatively few changes among its members other, than the three successive programme directors. Uniquely within IFPRI - and perhaps any other major economics and policy research organization - there are four fellows in FCNP with graduate level training in 20 nutrition, including two ,with doctoral degrees in economics. The programme is also home to one of the two economilc geographers at IFPRI. Since the 1984 rfeview, the FCNP has been engaged in about 19 projects, some 10 of which are presently active. Several of its fellows participate in projects assigned to other programmes and the FCNP also draws upon staff of other programmes. The FCNP programme is structured into five major policy research groups as under: 1. Technological change and commercialization including their consumption and nutrition effects, and fluctuations in production, prices, income, consumption, and energy use; Food prices and markets including food price and subsidy policies, and macroeconomic adjustment policies; Employment generation including income and employment sources of malnourished rural poor, and public works and food for work; Access to productive assets including land tenure and nutrition, human capital/education, and credit; Absolute poverty, including famine prevention policy; targeted interventions (pending), and nutrition-health links and community-based action. 2. 3. 4. 5. In addition, FCNP has an array of projects described as cross-cutting or basic research issues in consumption and nutrition. These are: causes and magnitudes of structural changes in food demand and nutrition; development and testing of analytical approaches to estimate and monitor nutrition effects of policies; adaptation to dietary energy stress; disaggregated worldwide developments in nutrition; micronutrients; sustainability and environmental linkages to consumption and nutrition; and measurement issues and survey techniques in various, unspecified projects. As shown in Figure 3.1, emphasis among subgroups has shifted over time. Heavy emphasis on the effects of technological change, commercialization and food subsidies on nutrition has been replaced by research on sources of income for the malnourished poor, food-for-work programmes; and famine preventions., Of all IFPRI programmes, this is the one that most effectively h,as taken up the challenge (of applying good research to the purpose of poverty reduction. FCNP derives 69% of its operational budget from restricted core funding and special projects. We see problems in the large proportion of projects supported from restricted core funding and special projiects. Proposal preparation and identification of sources of support is obviously demanding of staff time, and the administrative burden placed on the research staff to manage projects is substantial. The principal responsibility for projects falls more heavily on some than others. It seems to us that, in these circumstances, there is the danger that the pressures of fund seeking and project management compete with the thoughtful reflection on completled work that would best guide future work, with the careful consideration of research design 21 Figure 3.1 1984 - D PRICEAND SIDY POLICY, MACRO-ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT CHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND COMMERCIALIZATION - FLUCTUATIONS/ - INCOME AND SEASONALITY EMPLOYMENT SOURCES OF MALNOURISHED PO0.R - PUBLIC WORKS/FOOD FOR WORK - FAMINE PREVENTIONS 22 and new methodologies that could improve research efficiency for the direction and day-today supervision of micro-level work and, most certainly, with the refreshment of the fellows’ professional skills. We only review in some detail the first two groups of projects in order to extract broad recommendations for future research in this field of interest. 3.1.4.1 Effects of commercialization and technical change on consumution and nutrition This project has correctly been structured around a central working hypothesis that emerged from a broad conceptual framework derived from the literature on household behaviour in market economies and from a planning workshop. The hypothesis is the oft made allegation that the penetration of cash crops in peasant farming has detrimental effects on household nutrition. Field work has been organized in four African countries, Guatemala, and the Philippines and a document comparing results across case studies has been prepared. The results in general allow clear rejection of the working hypothesis. There are in our view two parts to the analysis. One is the explanation of the observation that smallholders, who are drawn into the production of cash crops, continue to produce most of their own food in spite of superior profitability in the production of cash crops. The interesting observation is made that this tends to occur through the spillover into food crops of the yield-increasing technologies adopted for the production of cash crops. Risk aversion and translportation costs are advocated, but the analysis stops short of providing a tight conceptualization of the rational choice basis for continued food selfsufficiency in terms of t.he reasons why and how markets fail for selective households. A general conceptual framework, good intuition, and highly cautious empiricism have allowed extraction of many relevant conclusions (such as the key role of technological change in food crops in order to increase smallholders’ response to price incentives in cash crops; the role of the development of market infrastructure to allow for greater specialization; and the need to promote the de:velopment of rural financial institutions to reduce market failures in labour hiring. Future work in this area should be based on a more formal conceptualization of the causes of market failure for specific households and of the implication, which this has for resource use and nutritional status. These are of course frontier concepts the use of which raises once more the key question of how do IFPRI economists maintain themselves up to date in their disci,pline, a generic issue which we address later. The other is the: explanation of the apparent puzzle that the income elasticity for caloric intake is low and that the improvement of child nutritional status, as indicated by child growth, is small. This is an area of active debate in the profession. Several hypotheses have been advanced inc:luding the fact that there is a small scope for correcting deficits of child growth beyond the first year or two of life, that the cause of child smallness is mainly poor health rather than malnutrition, and that the relation between intake and income is kinked at a higher level of income with the result that smooth functional forms underestimate response at the lower end. The methods used for evaluating nutrition effects in these and other projects limit, in our opinion, the quality of the debate and the sophistication of the hypotheses generated. IFPRI is not alone in accepting body size (stunting and wasting) as equivalent to nutritional status, despite the recognition that size is a composite reflection of food intake, 23 environmental conditions, genetics, etc. Early childhood growth would, of course, be a suitable marker of change if it were first shown that food intake is the limiting factor, &sting IFPRI data could, perhaps, be used more effectively to predict the situations in which food is quantitatively insufficient and energy intake is likely to limit growth and other outcomes. Past IFPRI work has shown that expenditures for food and behaviour of households in absolute poverty differ from those of the simply “poor” in response to changing income. Reviewers in 1984 recommended that elements of the PCNP programme should concentrate on households at the ultra-poverty level. With the proviso that caloric intake and anthropometric data are not used to classify ultra-poverty, studies at that level may reveal more precisely the conditions in which food quantity or availability across time is the first limiting nutritional factor, what determines the threshold of responsiveness under these conditions, which policies effectively improve nutritional state. We are pleased to learn that the FCNP has such an analytical study nearing completion. The validity of this type. of analysis rests heavily on the quality of the food intake data. We are told that two intake methodologies used in the Philippines project did not agree regarding energy intake. This points to a need for greater attention to methodology. FCNP plans to utilize the Philippines data to study demand functions for micronutrients, addressing the question of food quality and balance, as opposed to quantity. This project should be viewed as an exploratory effort. The available food nutrient composition data base is incomplete, and the micronutrients are, in any case, differentially affected by household food preparation, so the computed intakes will be approximations the reliability of which varies among the micronutrients. The existing data set does not contain any direct measures indicative of micronutrient level that would setie to validate the intake estimates. While research on micronutrients is more complex than IFPRI’ s conventional studies, there are important policy ramifications to the diet quality issue and we support explanatory efforts along this line. The fact that the CG system is moving toward inclusion of horticultural crops and fisheries in its overall programme gives added impetus to the study of diet complexity and essential nutrient status. It is good to see IFPRI being involved in frontier debates which are rich in policy implications and where it has the potential of making a significant contribution because of the large primary data base that it has collected. As in the case of economics it raises, however, the fundamental question of the effectiveness of the linkages which lFPR1 staff is able to maintain with the nutrition profession in order to insure excellence in its research. 3.1.4.2 Food and agriculture pricing and the poor This project continues the important series of food subsidies studies that were recently published in the Johns Hopkins Food Subsidies book. It has attracted considerable attention and has demonstrated that food subsidies, properly managed, can have strong positive effect on the nutritional status of the poor. Other aspects of food subsidies are pursued, such as food for work programmes and combined health/nutrition interventions. We feel that this area of work has been successful in generating policy implications but that it needs to be pushed into three directions instead of further geographical coverage. 24 One is the need to better trace out the effects which subsidies have on the price structure and, through this, the resource allocation and income effects which they induce. This would require a multimarket-type approach that ties the market where price intervention on income effects are occurring to other product and factor markets and closes the model through income equations. We are, in general, surprised that more attention has not been paid to price effects which should be the centre piece of research on subsidy schemes, whether these ;subsidiesoccur via the price mechanism on though income transfers. Another is the need to pay greater attention to the opportunity cost of subsidy programmes, i.e. to how they are financed, how the extra demand for food is secured, and how the choice of targeting affects costs and benefits of the programme through direct and secondary effects. There are fundamental questions of public finance and of foreign exchange costs that need to be addressed. In general, like in the infrastructure and other public expenditure work carried on at IFPRI, we feel that the question of opportunity cost has not been sufficiently addressed (with exception of the Egypt study) and definitely deserves closer attention. Finally, one of the very important current policy adjustments to foreign sector imbalances is through the descaling and retargeting of food subsidies programmes. A very revealing study has been made on this subject by IFPRI research in Sri Lanka. The social and administrative proce:ssesthrough which these subsidy schemes are reduced and optimum targeting from both cost,/benefit and political feasibility standpoints deserve attention as they are highly topical issues in the field of food subsidies. The work on food subsidies has been extensively and highly praisefully reviewed in the literature. A common observation, however, is that the project would have benefited from use of a tighter conceptual framework. This appears to be a recurrent theme in IFPRI’ s research and we take on elsewhere in this Report the question of improving the scientific quality of IFPF1I’ s research in general. 3.1.4.3 Comments on some of the proposed new research themes As a result of their self-study and internal review, FCNP staff has identified infectious disease and environmental health conditions as important, largely neglected, variables in their microstudies. Increased income has not always led to higher food intake,. nor increased energy intake to significant gains in children’ s nutrition as indicated by height and weight. Disease experience is seen as an important intervening and explanatory variable and this is likely to be true. Morbidity is at least as difficult to assessas other relevant variables and is analytically complicated by the effect of mortality in the sample frame. The draft strategic plan requests authorization of one position for a health specialist who would, presumably, contribute to the FCNP as well as to ;a proposed environmental programme. Adequate coverage of the area requires a wide array of medical and public health disciplines, particularly in the phases of research design and a.nalysis. We suggest that the FCNP should establish collaborative arrangements with a group or institution that specializes in health research, leaving to a future time reconsideration of its own staff needs. 25 A second theme, on which preliminary work has already been done, is energy balance at low levels of intake. The project “differences in capacity to adapt to nutrition (energy) stress”, began with a literature review organized as to sources of stress, timing, victims/adapters, methods of coping, areas types of adaptation, and barriers to adaptation. The described plan of work is to identify primary data which show that one group of people is better able to tolerate dietary energy stress than another, and then to carry out microstudies of these groups to determine the causes and effects of the difference. This is an important and hotly debated topic and it will require work of the highest caliber if conclusions are to be accepted by the scientific community. The micro-level research will be costly because highly discriminating technical methods, some of them biological, are necessary and much of the methodology is outside the scope of previous IFPRI research. This is an area in which inadequate research would be worse than no research. Despite the concerns just enumerated, we reiterate that the FCNP has been a productive group (publishing 60 reports and papers since the last review) whose research is well-regarded by the scientific community, IFPRI’ s clients, and its donors. If this stature is to be maintained, it is our view that the burden of fund-generation needs to be reduced significantly, even if this translates into fewer projects but with a fairer distribution of core support. In this we echo the comment of the 19S4 reviewers: ‘ I.+* great reliance on special funds takes much energy away from research, and can create insecurity and a sense of second-class citizenship within IFPRI’ s financial structures. The existing imbalance does not fairly reflect (FCNP’ s) outstanding record.” 3.1.5 International Trade and Food Securitv Programme This is one of IFPRI’ s star programmes that, in many ways, suggests modalities for effectiveness in both research and policy impact that can usefully be learned. The programme is small as it only includes three and a half research fellows in residence and one in the field, plus one consultant, two research analysts, and one research assistant. Pliost of its operational budget comes from unrestricted core (Table 3.1). The research outflow is, however, impressive as it includes, since the last review in 1984, 7 books, 10 research monographs, 15 chapters in books, 33 papers in professional journals, and numerous popular publications. This is in part due to the fact that the Programme has been skillful at attracting the cooperation of high quality outsiders from both the MDS and LDC, a practice that we very much recommend. The Programme has organized four symposiums and there has been active participation in professional meetings and public conferences. The research output and the outreach activities of the Programme have been widely praised in the profession. The programme is organized around four central themes: The determination of the structure of price incentives for agriculture in open economies and the effects of these incentives on the performance of agriculture, food security, and the role of agriculture in economic development; the short run management of stability in food supply through storage and trade; the potential impact of multilateral trade negotiations on the LDCs; and the management of food security including through regional trade and food aid. In terms of research output, some of the main contributions have been the series of books and monographs on the quantification of price distortions in seven countries, the cost 26 of these distortions in terms of long run economic growth, the management of public storage and variable trade levies for the stabilization of supply, the role of regional trade for food security, and the expected effects of GAIT negotiations on the developing countries. The project on price incentives had the important feature of not only providing a wealth of information on price distortions in many countries but of advancing a methodological framework for the measurement of distortions that has subsequently been implemented widely. This framework has been developed jointly by IFPRI and the Worldi Bank with a significant amount of World Bank resources devoted to the development of methodology before actual country level studies were implemented. While the framework. is relatively simple to implement, its definition calls upon frontier concepts in open economy macroeconomics and it has the merit of clarifying a great degree of confusion in the use elf indicators of price distortions. While the results obtained have been striking, in particular by pointing out the importance of indirect distortions of price incentives for agriculture through real exchange rate apprleciation and industrial protectionism policies, the development of ;an approach and the demonstration of its use are, in our opinion, of far greater significance than repeated application by IFPRI of the proposed methodology to a number of countries. The long run, economy wide, implications of these price distortions have also been formalized in aggregated general equilibrium models, further advancing the methodological ability of measuring the dynamic impact of price distortions. Finally, significant contributions have been made in the understanding of the aggregate supply response of agriculture, a key question in the role of agriculture in economic development and in structural adjustment. The research done at IFPRI stressed the role of the elasticity of su.pply response in factox markets in conditioning agricultui:e’ s long run elasticity of aggregat: supply. Successful empiricism is however still largely to be done. This aspect of IFPRI’ s work suggests that a key contribution it can make to food policy reform is in showing how to conduct good policy research, from the stage of identification and adaptation of the useful elements of frontier concepts of economic theory, to gathering of the relevant data, and use of these data to measure the opportunity costs of faulty policies and to simulate the gains from policy reforms. In so doing, IFPRI plays th[e role of an innovator in policy analysis, a demonstrator of how rigorous policy analysis can be done, and a teacher as to how it can be replicated and updated. We believe that this achievement provides a pattern whereby IFPRI can most effectively fulfill its mandate. We should recall however t:hat collaboration with the World Bank was key to this process. Further joint ventures with this and other international organizations should again be sought to secure resources for methodological research preceding empirical work. Pointing to the above success is not to say that this research is beyond criticism and that more is not left to be done. The role of the state and of the provision of public goods and the need for eventual second best approaches to taxation (including and especially in the non-agricultural sectors) in order to finance these expenditures is insufficiently taken into account in the analysis. The role of transactions costs in the passing through of bordler prices into effective farm prices for different regions, commodities, and types of producers is yet to be explored. The study of price transmission from international relative prices and trade and exchange rate policies to domestic prices needs to be done in a more disaggregated framework than the reduced form terms of trade equations (omega models:) or the three-sector (agriculture, nonagriculture, and government) models used up to now. 27 Working at a high level of aggregation has been useful as an entry point into the problem to ident@ the origins and magnitudes of major sources of distortions and the high cost that these distortions have had over time. Extracting useful policy implications from these general observations now requires taking the analysis to much greater levels of commodity and social disaggregation in multi-commodities approaches that privilege the natutre of the interactions among activities, factors, and social actors, a research area which we feel is still largely missing at SFPRI when it should be at the core of all its programmes. We su that this area of research, which will require major data collection under no delivery could be one of the key projects for the Trade Progra that may well require additional staff resources. Finally, the analysis of the economics licy reform and the trade-offs between growth and welfare effects for different social groups implied by different sequences of reforms is a burning topic that should be explored, The Internal Review Committee thus suggested the importance of providing policy makers with an analytical framework to help them anticipate, through prediction of the distriloution of gains and losses from reform, where the major resistances and supports to reforms are likely to arise. Another lesson from the performance of the Trade Programme is the use of high level outside collaborators. We believe that IFPRI, in this sense, needs to go beyond incorporating country counterparts to make its research possible and to achieve on-the-job training, as this programme has effectively done. It needs to also incorporate, on a cooperative basis, top economists who bring to IFPRI frontier tools and fields of expertise that are not represented in the Institute. As one Programme researcher put it, appropriately using the jargon of trade, “IFPRI needs to be much more of an open economy than it has been in the past”, an opinion with which we concur. Finally, the experience of the price distortions project and the methodological contributions that it has been able to make suggest the need to support new research initiatives with enough seed money to allow for innovative methodological conceptualizations before country-level work is initiated. For this purpose, core funds must be set aside as seed money that would expectedly be allocated on a competitive basis among proposed new research areas and, in general, core funding should be used to support the more long run, methodology oriented, and innovative research. Starting, for example, a new research project in the field of policy reform, as suggested by the Internal Review Committee and proposed by the Programme director, requires a major investment of time in exploring a difficult new field, getting review papers prepared, consulting with experts in the field, and developing a methodology that can be applied to a number of case studies. Failing to provide this breathing space to new projects will keep IFPRI’ s research in well trodden and pedestrian research areas. The food aid projects appear as activities within the Trade Programme with little effective interface with the rest of the Programme. This is unfortunate as any assessmentof food aid needs to be done in relation to production and trade strategies. The programme has asked interesting factual questions regarding the magnitude of future food aid requirements to meet gaps in effective demand and in unsatisfied nutritional needs. We are, however, at somewhat of a loss to see where IFPRI is making a significant original policy contribution in this field. We also find that some of the major questions on the issue of food aid are left unanswered. In particular, on the basis of solid empirical analysis and the evaluation of concrete situations, answers should be sought on how food aid has been used as an effective instrument of economic development; how it has served in the context of 28 structural adjustment to shelter those affected by the reallocation of resources and to insure the political feasibility of reforms; how it has eventually resulted in an effective increase in the assets in the hands of the poor and in their income earning capacity; and how it has been most effectively targeted in terms of nutritional improvement, cost/benefit and economically optimal leakages, and social stability and politically optimum leakages. Our recommendation is that work on food aid should be fully integrated in the analysis of other approaches to deal with food security and poverty alleviation. In addition, we believe that more attention should be given to the analysis of micro experiences where food aid and food-for-work programmes have been effectively used. We applaud, in this sense, the ongoing study of the Maharastra Employment Guarantee Scheme and look forward to seeing the results from this study. The Internal Review recommended that the Trade Programme should move more into systematic policy outreach, particularly with respect to the expected impacts of international trade liberalization on different categories of developing countries and to be assessmentof various approaches to trade negotiations from a developing countries perspective. The GATT seminar organized by IFPRI in Switzerland is a successful example of what this outreach can achieve. This, however, cannot be done with the existing size of the Programme and it ,will need to be expanded for this to happen. 32 Research Areas With IFPRI’ s research sructured by programrr es and the research fundamentally conducted at the level of projects, the former director correctly id!:ntified the need to introduce a mechanism whereby the results from a variety of projects that, in fact, cut ac:ross programmes, could be regrouped around major themes and the results synthesized to facilitate extraction of major policy implications. For this purpose, five Research Areas were introduced in 1986, each under the responsibility of one or two area coordinators. These areas are: development strategies, technology policies, poverty alleviation strategies, food and poverty in Africa, and food aid. In recent documents, food aid has been deleted and the environment added. Work in each of the original areas was organized as the preparation of an edited book with chapters contributed to by IFPRI staff along with synthesis chapters. Research retreats were organized in January-March 1989 to plan these books and some outside scholars were invited to advise and contribute chapters. First drafts for chapters were to be available for Fall 1990. We find that the idea of organizing area books is excellent and that it should be pursued. It is an effective way of synthesizing research results, identifying research gaps, extracting policy conclusions and advocating an IFPRI viewpoint, and of generating economies of scale in research to attract visibility on key policy issues and more effectively communicate results to IFPRI’ s constituency. It is also a vehicle whereby cross-country comparative analyses, one of IFPRI’ s strong comparative advantages in the research community, can be achieved. While the product should thus be very effective, there was an expectation that the process through which these books were to be elaborated would serve to compensate for a number of deficiencies of the existing Programme-based 0rganizatio.n of research. In this, we feel that the introduction of research areas was looked at as a surrogate for reforms to the inability of programmes to provide the desired consistency and coordination to IFPRI’ s research projects. This proved disappointing and we suggest thait, 29 while the effort should be maintained for bhe purposes of ex-ante identification of gaps, internal dialogue among IFPRI projects, and ex-post aggregation and communication of results, more should not be expected from it than it can deliver as a process and reforgmsto the programme approach should be punued as explained elsewhere in this Report. Areas are not effective for the conduct of research, since they have no accountability mechanisms. Instead, large medium- to long-term research projects need to be defined which, like areas, cut across programmes, but which have the consistency and the leadership characteristic of projects. Whenever a critical mass of results has been generated in one of these projects, their results, complemented with results from related projects and external invited papers, can be aggregated as an area b, should be available for this purpose. As discussed above in reviewing IFPRI3 research, we consider fundamental to the quality of IFPRI’ s future research that this breathing space be afforded to projects that intend to explore new areas of knowledge. Research projects: These are the central element of IFPRI’ s mandate. It is important to distinguish here between two types of projects to make an appropriate allocation of funds between them: (4) Medium and long term “flagship’ ”projects, projects that involve extensive primary data collection; and projects that seek to make methodological advances. For these projects, support from core funding should be available in priority. (2) Short term and spontaneous projects for which special funding is more adequate. Area syntheses: Area syntheses involve the compilation of results, comparative analyses, and extraction of overall conclusions, The proposed set of edited books, adequately redesigned, has this purpose. Post-project research: Special projects are often completed to the sponsor’ s satisfaction without either time or funds provided for IFPRI staff to wmplete the more penetrating analysis that would allow broader conclusions and the formulation of new hypotheses to anticipate future research. We feel that these are most important activities that come at the tail end of projects and require explicit funding from core resources. Country policy reviews and global visions: There are major, even revolutionary, agricultural policy changes currently occuring in many countries. This is the case with structural adjustment and state compression in the Sahelian countries, liberalization and privatization in Latin America, shifts to a market economy in some of the former socialist African countries, GATT negotiations regarding trade liberalization in the OECD countries, etc. We feel that IFPRI should be called upon to illuminate the policy debates that accompany these historical changes and be able to deliver unique expertise. This would come under the form of “white papers” prepared by IFPRI. These would have a strong empirical and analytical content, use 1FPRI”s past research in the region, provide comparative analyses with similar experiences in other countries, and would call for availability of high level expertise under the form of IFPRI’ s senior staff. IFPRI’ s document “Structural Adjustment, Agriculture, and Nutrition: Policy Options in the Gambia” and the background papers prepared for the workshop on strategies in GATT negotiations come closest to the types of information we have in mind. (ii) (iii) 32 In general, we can say that IF’ PRI has been effective in ii), has planned and needs to revise and carry through iii), has barely initiated v), and has, to our knowledge, not done i), and iv) in any systematic fashion. While ii) has to remain the main thrust of staff time, we suggest that IFTRI should seek a better balance between these levels of policy research. 3.4.2 Insuring excellence in research While some IFPRI publications are of outstanding quality and none is unacceptable (due to the professionalism of its staff and the rigors of the review process), the quality range may be wider than it should and the average could be raised, particularly by a more explicit and judicious use of economic theory and more rigorous use of statistical and econometric techniques., We should say, in passing, that both relevant economic theory and quantitative techniques have advanced dramatically in the last ten years and that it is both essential for IFPRI economists to remain at the frontier of applied economic research and difficult for them to do #so. Also to be said is that we are not suggesting that IFPRI should engage in the development of new theoretical advances in economics but in the pragmatic adaptation and use of existing theories and methodologies to the conceptualization of policy questions that arise in LDCs. Some suggestions for improvement of the quality of IFPRI’ s work are as follows (this is in addition to the issue of the quality and upkeep of IFPRI staff which we address elsewhere): (i9 Enhance the interactions with the economic profession, a pos:;ibility particularly favorable in the Washingtcn location. This can br: done by: - Engaging morle systematically in joint research projects with top outside scholars. - Inviting at IF’ PRI high level visitors on short/medium term appointments, exploring in particular the possibility of partially paid sabbatical leaves from US and other universities. Visitors should in general be expected to engage in joint research with IFPRI staff or to conduct at IFPRI types of research that would create a strong learning effect on the permanent staff. - Using advisors in the greater Washington area. Outsiders could also serve as consultants to th.e Research Committee to allow for early reviews of on-going projects. - Adding external members to the Publications Review Committee. - Using more systematically refereed journals as publication outlets to benefit from professional feedback. This is particularly important in nutrition where the IFPRI staff component is small and the subject is wide-ranging. (ii) Add to IFPRI’ s istaff an in-house statistician/econometrician with up to date training in sampling tech:niques, statistical analysis of primary data, econometric methods, and statistical computer packages. This person need not be on a full time basis and could well be only available on call. 33 (iii) Intensify the internal dialogue within IITRI with regularly scheduled seminars given by top experts in the field and presentation of research results in “brown bag” seminars before they have reached the stage of first draft of a research report. These seminars need to be organized by an IITRI research staff member on a rotating basis as knowledge of the field is essential. The internal reviews of each programme were conducted by renowned scholars and their recommendations were extensively discussed by the staff of each programme. This is a very important process that should be repeated periodically’ We suggest, however, that reviewers be given more time to read the detail of at least a selected subset of research in order to be able to provide more specific technical feedbacks on the research procedures that have been used. 3.4.3 Achievine interdisciplinaritv in research without dilettantism (iv) IF’ PRI’ s research is issue oriented and as such requires an interdisciplinary approach. This is particularly true in the fields of nutrition and health’ production’ and the environment where a keen understanding of the physical and biological processes at work is essential. An important question is to decide whether IFTRI should bring on board experts in these other disciplines or maintain basically a corps of economists and closely allied social scientists who seek complementary expertise in these disciplines through cooperative research projects. There is of course no sharp delineation between these two extremes and IFPRI has been skillful in hiring scholars with training in both economics and another discipline. The schism is also less sharp within the social sciences where boundaries are more easily overlapped. In general’ hewever, we feel strongly that professional disciplinary upkeep is essential for the long run excellence of IFFRI’ s performance. Isolated scientists cannot pretend to maintain frontier knowledge of their discipline if they are not surrounded by peers’ and IFPRI is too small to create critical masses in disciplines other than economics. It has effectively sustained its nutrition group by focussing fairly narrowly within the broad subject area, a realistic but not risk-free strategy. Social scientists with double majors in economics and another discipline should actively be sought, but not at the cost af second rate knowledge of economics. The raison d’ etre of the programme structure is to enhance disciplinary interactions and upkeep and there can only be a small number of viable programmes. We consequently suggest that IITRI should not spread itself thin disciplinarily and that interdisciplinary research be sought through collaborative projects with acknowledged experts in the relevant disciplines, particularly in the case of the biological and physical sciences. The activities of programmes must be explicitly organized around the theme of disciplinary excellence and we suggest that it is the main function of each programme director to oversee the process through which this happens. 3.4.4 Kev role of economies of scale in research Reviewing IFPRI’ s research achievements clearly shows that where the greatest policy impact has been achieved is where a critical mass of information has been generated on one theme. This allows researchers to generalize results, acquire unique knowledge of 34 the field, and establish visibility for outreach. The research projects on food subsidies and price distortions exemplify this observation. Achieving economies of scale requires a careful definition of priorities tbat must derive from the strategic planning exercise, the significant concentration of resources on these projects, the ability to sustain the research effort over several years, and mobilizing the interest and commitment of a large subset of research staiff. At the same time, existence of these projects must not happen at the cost of eliminating individual initiatives and1creativity in other pursuits. The art of managing economies of scale in research is consequently that of seeking a balance between these two approaches to research. With several large projects currently at their termination stage, we urge that the forthcoming strategic pl.anning process be rapidly put into motion to identify which will be IFPRI’ s future large scale projects. 3.4.5 IFPRI’ s main research contributions Judging the quality of research is of course somewhat subjective and any statemenl on this subject has to be taken as an informed value judgement. Yet, there are objective signs of recognition that can be used for this purpose such as book reviews and the citatiain of reports and articles as well as the results of the impact survey prepared for the February 1990 board meeting. It is interesting to see, for instance, that citations of IFPRI’ s research in the 1990 World Development Re:Dort, whi,ch addresses the subject of poverty, are both quite extensive and directed at materials which used extensive primary data (the food subsidies studies in Egypt, Sri Lanka, India, and the Philippines; the case studies of commercialization; and the evaluation of the Grameen Bank) or which made use of solid methodological analysis (the studies on price distortions and their long run effects). These are also project areas where significant economies of scale and effective syntheses were achieved, supporting the above observations. IFPRI made a valiant effort to identify policy impacts in a document presented to the Board in February 11990.The results show the great variety of mechanisms through which influence occurs, some haphazard, others through the expected channels of use of information for policy making. Significant impacts were recorded in providing information (together with the World Bank) that led to the elimination of price distortions in a large number of countries, to bringing new dimensions to the GATT negotiations, to the early identification of food deficits in certain areas, to the modification of approaches to food subsidies to achieve greater cost efficiency, to donor support for investment in infrastructure, and to the promotion financial institutions for the mobilization of rural savings as opposed to the traditional and devastating provision of subsidized credit. As these observations reveal, the process whereby research translates into policy reform is highly complex and diverse. We suggest that analysis of this process be the object of systematic research scrutiny and that the results of this research be used as a cornerstone of future strategic planning exercises for both research and outreach. 35 3.4.6 SuPgested themes for research It would be mistaken to propose here a laundry Iist of topics that corresponds to the particular areas of interest of members of the EPR team. It is also the case that IFPRI’ s research already covers an enormous spectrum of topics and that what is needed is not a longer list, but a sense of priorities in emerging areas. We consequently discuss here very broad themes that derive from a review of past achievements and existing gaps, suggestions of fruitful areas to be emphasized as current research projects terminate and IFPRI staff is able to accommodate them. 09 The process of policy research and policy making: Different countries have widely different institutional arrangements for the conduct of their agricultural policy research and for policy making. Since IFPRI’ s effectiveness depends upon these institutions and processes, it is important that they be known’ analyzed, and compared. This research would be analogous to the recent CG studies on the organization of agricultural research by country. Information should thus be gathered on the policy research and policy making sectors and mechanisms of a number of countries. This includes the sources and management of information; the decision making mechanisms involved including the roles of interest groups, government, and international organizations; and the procedures for the implementation of policy reforms. Note that we are not asking IFPRI to enter into the touchy field of the political economy of reform but to do the positive analysis needed to understand tow agricultural policy research and policy are made. Economics of policy reform: While the analysis of the polttcs of po1ic.yreform may be left to other institutions with greater ability of advocating positions to make pohcy reform more politically feasible, IFPRI has a key role to play in indentifying the costs and benefits across social groups and for government deriving from particular reforms and their sequencing and timing. This requires the use of economic models able to trace out the real income effects and the fiscal implications of alternative policy reforms. As suggested by the internal reviewers of the Trade Programmeme, we believe that this research is the cornerstone for the analysis of policy reform. Price transmission mechanisms: This is of course the main research topic for the analysis of agricultural price policy and IFPRI has done much work in that area. Yet, it is surprising to observe that the mainstay of this analysis has hard1y been pursued at IPPRI, namely a study of price transmission across product markets factor markets, and between product and factor markets through not only the profit function but also income and trade effects. This would call upon multimarket or simple general equilibrium approaches with a sufficient disaggregation on both product, factor, and income sides. Whiie this is the bread and butter of price policy research, it is not present in IFPRI’ s research and much innovative work is left to be done in this field. Market failures and institutions: This is a recent field of formal economic analysis which has been highly dynamic and is of great importance for the understanding of the rural areas in the developing countries because it is where so many markets fail or are incomplete. Yet, IFPRI has only done superficial work in that area. The work on commercialization indirectly touched on the subject of credit and insurance (ii) (iii) 36 market failures which are reasons why peasant households, who move into the production of cash crops, were observed to remain heavily into food production with the use of family labour. Similarly, these ideas are implicit behind the work on regional trade in Africa. Yet, the institutional arrangements (contracts, grassroot organizations, etc.) which emerge to compensate for these market failures have not been studied. ilJnderstanding them is fundamental for the definition of policy reforms since the market failures that gave rise to their existence are unlikely to disappear with the policy changes. Policy reforms that undermine these institutions will be counterproductive. We consequently suggest that IFPRI pay due attention to these institutions in its future research. (v) Sector-macro linkages: Work on trade has been located in economy-wide models (omega models and three-sector models) and macro variables have been taken into account in the way they unidirectionally affect agriculture (partial equilibrium studiies of product and factor markets). It is the feedback between sector and macro that has generally not been treated in models with sufficient disaggregation to serve for useful policy advice. In economies where the agricultural sector is a high share of GDP or of total export earnings, this is very important. Studies of structural adjustment should fall into this analytical framework. Since this is a fairly specialized and demanding field of economic analysis, we suggest that IFPRI should pay attention to this area in future recruiting. The dynamics of rural poverty in the context of structural adjustment and natural shocks: This is an area that has been vigorously pursued in recent years at IFPRI and that should remain a top priority for future research. 3.4.7 Managine in-country research follow-up By contrast to alcademic research, IFPRI needs to insure sustainability of the research effort which it has brought to fruition in a particular country. This requires defining follow up activities and managing a transition toward a national research effort within the budgetary and personnel capabilities of a national institution. When, for example, a household survey has been conducted, possibly a reduced observatory needs to be put into place based on a subset of households and variables. When trade and exchange rate distortions have been measured, a continuing series of indicators needs to be suggested and the mechanisms to gather and analyze the necessary information organized. Assistance to this task should be provided by the Director of Outreach who will consequently need have a good professional knowledge of the research involved. 3.5 Assessment and1Recommendations IFPRI’ s researc.h during the last five years has addressed many of the key policy issues, has been of solid and reliable quality, has been well received in the research community, and has had a visible, if necessarily diffuse and somewhat unpredictable, impact on policy making. We are reassured that this research effort is continuing unabated. The main thrust of our recommendations falls along two main lines: enhancing excellence in research; and bringing research closer to major current policy reforms. 37 The Food Data Evaluation Proeramme has fulfilled its initial mandate in a superior fashion but, given changing needs for policy research and the consequent introduction of new research programmer, on a relatively constant budgetary base, we recommend the following: - The Programme should be phased out and the research fellows in this programme reallocated as appropriate to other programmes in correspondence with the disciplinary thrust of their work. Management of the data bank containing secondary information should be assigned to the Computer Services Unit. - A primary data bank should be organized in which the data from some of IFPRI’ s many household surveys are documented and archived for future research. This is a demanding task for which an expert in data management and core funding should be available. - Due to the large amount of statistical and econometric work in IFPRI’ s research, a professional support is needed to provide this expertise. This expert need not be full time but might be retained on a contractual basis. The Food Production Policv Programme has focused on the structure of incentives, the provision of strategic inputs, and the allocation of resources to research. It has given priority to production problems in Africa and to those of small farmers. Its previous work on production and price instability and crop insurance has received considerable attention. The programme is however excessively large and heterogenous for effective performance. We consequently recommend that: - The programme be subdivided into two programmes using as a criterion the maximization of disciplinary homogeneity within each. We have suggested a split between farm management and public goods, but other solutions need to be considered and evolve from staff suggestions. We also suggest that more attention needs to be given to formal analysis of price transmission mechanisms across markets, the role of institutions (contracts and associationsj when markets fail, and the opportunity cost and public finance implications of public goods programmes such as infrastructure, agricultural research, and education. The Aericultural Growth Linkages Proeramme has the important mandate of analyzing the role of agriculture in alternative development strategies. While individual research pieces are good, it is a highly dispersed programme where the main theme is not squarely addressed. With the abandonment of the research area dealing with development strategies, we recommend: - That the programme be renamed “Development Strategies” as originally suggested by the previous EPR. We also suggest that the programme develop a master plan to establish a clear research agenda and that it focus its priority on the main themes that constitute the issue of agriculture in development strategies. 38 The Food Consumption and Nutrition Policv Programme has benefitted from effective leadership and has been able to insure internal coherence and significant economies of scale in research. It has focused squarely on problems of poverty and malnutrition. Results on food subsidies and commercialization have received widespread attention and important new research projects are in place. The programme faces the challenge of dealing with evolving nutritional and health issues that require rigorous knowledge of these fields. We recommend that: - To accommodate new and more technically challenging biologically- oriented programmes, the programme seek to develop more effective collaborative arrangements with centers of excellence in nutrition and health instead of adding isolated specialists to its in-house staff. We further suggest that professional maintenance of the nutritionists at IFPRI needs special attention, since ;a critical mass of peers is not available within the Institute. The International Trade and Food Securitv Proeramme has generated significant new approaches for the understanding of the impact of the structure of price distortions on agriculture and the information it has generated has had visible policy impact. We commend the programme for its e:ffectiveness in collaborating with high quality scholars in both developed and developing countries and with other international organizations. We recommend that: - The programme be expanded to allow it to take on additional research responsibilities (such as the higher disaggregation of price effects within complete models and the difficult theme of policy reform) and further expand its outreach activities. Organizing Research Areas was seen as a potentially effective way of insuring greater coordination and cumulation in research results produced by projects belonging to different programmes. While these objectives are laudable, only the latter can be achieved by area books. We consequently recommend that: - The current approach to research area coordination be abandoned, but that efforts at syntheses under the form of edited books be maintained. The modalities whereby these books are achieved and their contents need to be thoroughly reconsidered. We suggest that. greater efforts be made to hire women on the research staff, particularly with the rapid increase of women among Ph.D. graduates in agricultural economics. Greater sensitivity to gender considerations must also be introduced in all research projects. General considerations derived from an overall assessmentof IFPRI’ s research lead us to recommend that: - Seed money should be made available on a competitive basis for pre-project wolrk to help identify policy issues and gaps in knowledge, formulate hypotheses, and specify the methodologies to be used. 39 - Post-project money should also be available to bring research carried on soft funding to its full fruition and allow the extraction of broader policy conclusions and the writing of more scholarly papers. - Country policy reviews and white papers on instances of “hot” policy reforms should be prepared in support of conferences that bring IFPRI to the front line of policy debates. Preparation of these materials should be a major responsibility of the senior research staff and fully coordinated with IFPRI’ s outreach programme. Throughout our review, we have pursued the theme of excellence in research. We have made a number of suggestions to this end including enhanced interactions with the profession, increased professional dialogue within IFPRI, and more effective linkages with centers of excellence in the disciplines weakly represented at IFPRI. We have also advanced suggestions for new directions in IFPRI’ s research, as the opportunity materializes, on the themes of the process of policy research and policy making, the economics of policy reform, the modeling of price transmission mechanisms, the analysis of market failures and the role of agrarian institutions, the dynamics of rural poverty in the context of structural adjustments and natural shocks, and the analysis of sector-macro linkages at a greater level of disaggregation than in past research. Research on sustainability and the environment is taken on specifically in Chapter 6. 40 CHAIPTER 4 - CAPACITY. BUILDING, OUTREACH AND INTERNATIONAL COOPFRATION IFPRI’ s mandate: states that the Institute’ s research must reflect worldwide interaction with policy makers and other relevant actors in the food production arena; should be carried out as much as possible in collaboration with national research organizations and with appropriate international organizations. concerned with food policy; and should interact with the production science centres of the CGIAR. The mandate also states that IFPRI is to disseminate widely the results of its research through various outreach methods and training is to be an important part of the Institute’ s effort. All these aspects of IFPRI’ s work, while complementary to its central policy research responsibility are essential to fulfill its overall goals. They are reviewed and discussed in this chapter. Training We may recall that the development of IFPRI has gone through several phases and that the move into training is part of a logical progression. The early years of IFPRI’ s development were devoted to building its own comprehensive research programme and establishing credibility with a significant outflow of scientifically solid and relevant research output. This was followed by the development of a set of cooperating institutions and in-service training, while outreach was expanded through policy seminars and conferences. The next phase is to initiate a more systematic involvement into training for policy analysis research, to improve national capacities in this regard and to improve the policy making environment in developing countries . Training is an explicit component of IFPRI’ s mandate. This is logical, since the ultimate modality of IFPRI’ s work should be to help the countries do their own policy research, with IFPRI staff serving as research advisors and doing directly only the research that national research centers cannot do. This latter type of research would include the development and adaptation of applied methodologies for policy analysis, research on emerging new issues on which there is no established research traditilon, comparative analysis across countries and the aggregation and synthesis of research results, and direct research in countries that do not have the critical mass of research analysts. In this vision, the main roles of IFPRI in the well- known areas of policy research would be those of a research advisor and a catalyst of networks. For this’purpose, a critical mass of in-country research capacity needs to be built where it does not exist. Many countries have a corps of t.rained economists, but knowing economic theory is not the same a.s being able to use it to do policy research; these economists need the experience of actually conducting this research. In other countries, a systematic educational effort at the M.Sc. and Ph.D. levels, assisted by international donors, needs to be undertaken as a prerequisite for training in policy research. IFPRI has been effective at in-service training by involving in its research scholars from cooperating institutions. Currently, collaborative research is conducted in more than twenty developing countries with some 55 centers and institutions. Collaborative activities occur both in the field at the level of data collection and at the Washington headquarters for data analysis and 41 policy conclusions. These interactions have been mutually beneficial and we commend IFPRI very highly for this modality of research (which is clearly superior to the non-cooperative approach of many other international organizations and universities). Nearly 100 researchers currently collaborate with PFPRI in the field and the annual flow of visitors to headquarters is approximately 20, Greater exposure of visiting fellows to the breadth of work on-going at IFPRI could be organized to allow them to gain experience beyond the research project in which they are directly involved. We suggest that the IFPRI staff member who has arranged for the visit of a collaborator serve more explicitly as an advisor at large for this scholar and guide himher through the research activities on-going at IFPRI in order to maximize the breadth of the training effects derived from presence at IFPRI. In defining the next phase of IFPRI’ s role in training’ it is important to recall that its fundamental comparative advantage is in the field of policy research; other activities should, in as much as possible’ complement that function, not compete with it. We are, in particular, concerned that high-quality research by EPRI staff should be sufficiently sheltered fronr the pressures of outreach that naturally tend to overwhelm research after a number of years and as scholars age profesionally. Having said this, it is evident that IFPRI’ s ultimate goal, which is to influence policy-making so as to induce growth and reduce poverty, cannot be attained without putting into place a strategy to assist in the building of in-country research capacity and in improving the quality of national policy analysis and formulation. This inevitably involves opportunity costs on IFPRI’ s research which it must incur as an integral part of fulfilling its mandate, but needs to minimize. We have no single recom.mendation to make for a modus onerandi to sustain this delicate balance. We do not want to predetermine how extensive IFPRI’ s staff involvement in this teaching effort should be. Yet, the general principle of this involvement can be suggested. IFPRI’ s Research Reports would be used for the preparation of class exercises for the teaching of policy research. Teaching in the theory and methods of policy analysis would thus be illustrated using these exercises drawn from a variety of country settings’ Computer exercises would be prepared with the calculations involved. Topics covered would span the basic analytical instruments used in policy research. For each, the exercises would serve to demonstrate the methodologies of policy research, complete from hypothesis formulation to theoretical conceptualization, data collection, empirical analysis, the simulation of alternative policy scenarios, and the derivation of policy recommendations. PFPRl’ s staff involvement could range from only providing to others the raw materials for the elaboration of exercises to organizing the exercises as teaching materials and computer exercises, and to teaching short courses (e.g. two weeks) with the materials and the associated theoretical background. Most of this teaching would be done in the developing countries, using as teachers, in particular, IFPRl’ s most able collaborators from such countries. Several of the younger members of IFPRI’ s staff would probably enjoy the periodic opportunity of teaching these courses as a way of retooling their own disciplinary skills in the absence of other teaching responsibilities. Students for these courses would be bachelor or master’ s level agricultural economists with actual or future responsibilities in policy analysis (e.g. analysts in the Ministries of Agriculture, research institutes, regulatory agencies, etc.). We suggest that the Director for Outreach (see Chapter 5) be responsible for the supervision of this teaching programme. We believe that this programme can be initiated with a modicum of resources and experimented with until an acceptable mode of operating is found. Preparation of teaching materials and the first rounds of courses could be done by contract at minimal cost. In later offerings, IFPRI’ s staff would increasingly contribute teaching materials and participate in teaching. Properly designed, this IFPRI involvement in teaching activities should find support in the donor community. 42 4.2 Conferences. !k~kms, and Workshops IFPRI has had an active programme of such activities, and the staff in charge of organizing these events must be commended for a superior performance in their planning an.d management. Three events were held in 1985, one in 1986, seven in 1987, one in 1988, live in 1989, and so far three in 1990. Of these conferences, 14 were held in developed countries (two in conjunction with Board meetings) and 7 in LDCs. We suppose that this imbalance reflects cos considerations, donor demands, and the desire of IFPRI to acquire more visibility in Europe and Japan, but IFPRI should be reminded that its primary clientele is in the LDCs. Location is lnot neutral on the distribution of benefits from a conference. Such events are usually attended not only by a first tier of participants who would travel wherever invited, but also by a second tier of locals who will only benefit if the conference is held in their own country, In addition, conferences can be used as a significant boost for the stature of IFPRI’ s local cooperating institutions and for the res.earch done in that country. They should consequently, inasmuch ;as possible, be organized with or at one of the cooperating institutions. The format of Policy Briefs used for conferences with policy makers, where papers are reduced to a summary of no more than two pages, is an extremely effective way of making the reading of essential materials feasible and of inducing retention of the most important points made by the authors. In general, however, we suggest that these policy briefs should indicate which IFPRI research the brief is derived from (if this applies) and list further readings from among IFPRI research for readers interested in more information on the subject. There are two types of events that IFPRI has organized and that call upon different clienteles and upon the prleparation of different written materials and presentations. One is the reporting of research results to the research and policy-analysis community where academic papers are presented and subsequently collected in an edited volume. The IFPRI books have thus, in general, emerged from one or several such conferences. The other is the organization of high-level policy seminars for which Policy Briefs are prepared. Such briefs were prepared on the world food situation, the development of Third World food markets, the role of infrastructure in agricultural development, the role of Japan. in Third World agricultural development, and structural change in African agriculture. Two of these were in relation to Board Imeetings and thus largely internal affairs. Of the other three, only the conference on Third World food markets was directed at a current “hot” policy issue - in this case the presumed conflicts between technical assistance to food production in LDCs (the CGIAlR’ s mandate) and the interests, of developed-countries farm exporters in expanding their markets for food and feed grains, with all the implications that this has for opposition by farm lobbies to foreign aid budgets and constraints imposed by them on the International Agencies’ loans or technical support to the diffusion of Green Revolution technology. We believe that IFPRI needs to be more involved, as a catalyst and informant, in frontline policy debates on burning issues of policy reforms. For this purpose, a clearer sens’ eof priorities needs to be established that links these outreach activities to the Institute’ s strategic plan - an observation that brings us once more back to the issue of strategic planning, one outcome of which needs to be a set of priorities for policy conferences. We suggest that the. Institute’ s senior research fellows must assume the leadership in identifying and organizing these events, including the demanding preparation of background materials. Better ex ante planning will also allow a more stable annual flow of seminars than in the past, wider staff participation, and more lead time and 1e:ss disruption of their long-run research activities. 43 43 Publications and the Review Process In starting on this subject, we should first and foremost congratulate IFPRI’ s Information Services for a truly remarkable job. The quality of the editing, the range of publications, the format for presentation and printing, and the management of the distribution network are in our view excellent. We leave to the EMR the analysis of the mechanics of the Information Service and concentrate here on the process whereby materials are reviewed and the appropriateness of the range of outlets used. IFPRI publishes research reports (currently numbering 81)’ an abstract for each research report (also in French and Spanish), gray-cover reports, working papers, policy brie&, Food Policy Statements, the IFPRI Report, and an annual report. It has edited 7 books published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. It runs a reprints series for journal articles. IFPRI has also edited special issues of professional journals such as World Development and Food Policy. Research published through The Johns Mopkins University Press as well as through professional journals is refereed by the editors of these organizations. It is important to note that use of a university press (as opposed to a commercial publisher) as an outlet for books implies that the materials are reviewed by two referees, and we commend IFPRI for this choice. The research reports are the main outlet for IFPRI’ s research and they are refereed under the supervision of the Publications Review Committee (PRC). The review process is fundamental to improving the quality of IFPRI’ s research output through feedback to authors, to ensuring quality control, and to enhancing the image of professional excellence that IFPRI projects. In general, the performance of the PRC has been good. A few suggestions to improve the quality and transparency of the review process are the following: (a) w (Cl The back cover of the Research Reports should briefly explain the rules that are followed for the review process so that external readers are informed of the rigors of the review, for instance the use of external referees. Being chair or member of the PRC is a major task that should be acknowledged. The composition of the Review Committee should also be listed on the back cover. As refereed publications, particularly in the Research Report series, become an explicitly important element of research performance in personnel reviews, the PRC could well incorporate two external members who have well known names in the field and are understanding of IFPRI’ s work and constraints. The World Bank does this for its two journal outlets (The World Bank Economic Review and the World Bank Research Observer) in order to decrease personal pressures on the members of the Review Committee. Referees should be kept informed of decisions taken by the PRC. When suggested modifications are substantial, referees should have the chance of looking at the manuscript a second time for them to assessif the suggested changes have been sufficiently taken into account. Finally, we suggest that consideration should be given - as already proposed by the 1984 EPR - to the possibility of translating the most relevant IFPRI reports into French and perhaps Spanish, so as to increase their use in policy analysis and national training w (4 44 programmes within the developing countries. The cost of translation would be substantial, but certain donors might provide support for countries of particular inte:rest. 4.4 Linkapes with DeweloDing Countries’ Institutions In pursuit of its central task of identifying and analyzing constraints and appropriate policies for accelerating food production and alleviating poverty in developing countries, IFPRI needs to establish collaborative ties with research and policy institutions of these countries. Such collaboration takes different forms, depending on the country settings, the nature of the reseiarch projects, and the concomitant training and information objectives of the Institute. The principal forms of research collaboration in decreasing order of intensity include: (a> The execution of long-term joint research projects, explicitly formalized with a national counterpart institution, which assigns research staff to work along with IFPRI staff, thus fully sharing in thie ideas, methodologies, analysis and conclusions of the project including joint authorship of publications resulting from it. Most IFPRI projects that have a large comlponent of field research in countries with a fair base of trained economists are organized and conducted in this fashion. Joint data collection and preliminary processing and tabulation, for which formal arrangements wit’ h national institutions are also normally set up. In this case, however, the scarcity of tra,ined professionals in these couniries limits the degree of national participation with1 IFPRI in the analytical phase. Informal interaction with developing-country researchers, bcth in the fit id and at headquarters. This form of collaboration also prevails in the many countries in which IFPRI does not conduct field research. Workshops and s’ eminars,which involve sharing research results and ideas with national colleagues. Occasionally these are jointly organized with developing-country institutions. The main purposle of these, however, is to provide information and training in the food policy area. (W (cl w It is clear from the above that research collaboration always involves interpersonal contacts and arrangements,, but formal institutional involvement at the developing-country level may not necessarily take pl.ace. In terms of the degree of IFPRI’ s influence on strengthening domestic capacity for continuing policy analysis, working closely with relevant national institutions is essential. Over the past five years, IFPRI has collaborated with over 100 institutions in the developing countries where it has had projects. This number is significantly higher than in thie previous five years. The most frequent partners are the ministries of agriculture (31%) through their economic or planning units and secondarily, through the national agricultural research institutes. The second most frequent collaborators are universities (26%)’ mainly through their schools of agriculture. Third come a variety of autonomous development research centres (17%). The ministries of economics or planning - which are generally the most influential bodies in determining national policies, including for agriculture - are less-frequent collaborators (10%:). In a few cases,joint research is done with regional developing- country organizations, such as SADCC and SEARCA. These linkages represent a valuable way of raising domestic awareness 45 of food and poverty policy issues, and of helping the countries to approach them in a sound, professional way. EPR Panel members had the opportunity of paying visits to several IFPRI projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America, in which the in-country collaboration could be extensively examined and evaluated. The Institute and the staff members responsible for the corresponding field projects must be given high marks for their work. Notwithstanding the sometimes very trying conditions under which the research must be done, they have been able to identify and attract good local researchers as partners in the projects, have generally established sound working relationships with their national counterparts, and have gained ample acceptance and respect in the national agricultural policy-making circles. In most cases, it would have been too early to identify visible policy impacts of the research. However, there is no doubt that good progress was being made in terms of raising the domestic awareness about food policy problems and selectively strengthening the local ability to deal with them. Obviously, large differences in these respects were apparent among collaborating countries, depending on the level of development of national research institutes, and the quantity and quality of professional economists in the countries. A mail survey of IFPRI’ s collaborating institutions conducted by the TAC Secretariat for this EPR, essentially confirms the above assessment. The large number of respondents were invariably appreciative of IFPRI’ s presence in their countries and of the research assistance provided. All expressed the desire for expansion of IFPRI’ s in-country research, stressing the need for closer involvement of local staff in all phases of it, and frequently expressing a wish for de, the main criticism concerned the more specific training components. On the less positive s’ sometimes limited part:cipation of nationals in the selection and desil;? of research projects (which are seen as being pre-deterrlined by IPPRI), and ,he fact tha: most of ths analytical phase of the projects is done at IFPRI headquarters, with insufficient opportunity for local staff involvement. The duration of IFPRI’ s collaboration with national institutions is important. In this respect, the fact that such collaboration, even in the most intensive case, is always tied to specific research projects (of fixed term) determines that in practice IFPRI has not forged long-term inter-institutional research linkages. Although it is true that there will be a tendency to engage the same (successful) institutes in new projects, IFPRI’ s strategy for follow-un mechanisms is important in order to eventually achieve impact at the country level. These linkage mechanisms have not been explicitly laid out, and generally do not seem to be operating adequately yet. We consequently suggest that follow-up procedures with cooperating institutions beyond the project stage be an explicit responsibility of the Director of Outreach. It is impossible to assessthe extent of IPPRI staff collaboration with individual incountry researchers that is not done throwgh institutional links, although it is known to occur in many developing nations. It would be useful if IFPRI could seek to build a permanent food policy networking scheme to help bring together the interests and capacities of this wide-spread and diverse set of economists. Such a network or networks obviously should include, or be formed with, selected research institutions as its main components This possibility, which was mentioned specifically by some respondents to the TAC questionnaire, should be considered by IFPRI in connection with the development of its training and outreach activities. In sum, IFPRI research in partnership with national institutions is a highly successful venture and it ought to be systematized and intensified in the future in order to better achieve the CGIAR-mandated objectives in the food policy area. 46 45 Linkapes with Develoued countries’ Institutions IFPRI, being a relatively small institute with a large and complex task to carry out, faces a real problem for maintaining standards of excellence in its research. Yet high-quality work; is the key to succeed in its mandate. One way to reinforce and expand IFPRI’ s own research capacity is to establish solid collaborative arrangements with superior research institutions and/or professionals of the developed countries, where most of the best economists are located. Many different linkage mechanisms can be devised. EPRI has in fact established some collaboration with developed- country institutiosns over the past five years, but probably too little and not necessarily of the most productive and research-quality-enhancing sort. There appear to be approximately thirty such institutions that have been associated in some form with IFF’ RI projects. Over 70% of these are universities, nearly all of them in the IJnited States; the remainder are independent research centres, and bilateral aid and research ‘ organizations. The forms of collaboration include shared staff appointments, joint projects, consulting arrangements, conferences, and various others. Given EPRI’ s location, it is natural that links be closest with U.S. institutions. In some cases, collaboration is with non-economic centres, such as in the field of nutrition and studies on China. It must be noted:, however, that in the applied economics area many of the collaborating institutions listed are not among the top research centres of the developed world. In fact, few of the best departments of economies or agricultural economics of U.S. universities appears as formaliv collaborating in IFPRI’ s research. This is not to say that there is not informal or intermittent consultation and exchanges with individual staff member?,of such departments, but obviously the strength and1breadth of such links is less than could be obtained through more formal inter-institutional arrangements. IFPRI should explore ways and means to take better advantage of the rich academic environment in the developed world, so as to enlist top-quality intellectual support for its policy research. By the same token, these arrangements could provide a regular way for IFPRI staff to have access to top academic departments, which would help the staff stay abreast of developments in economic theory and research methodology. While each research staff member should take initiatives toward this goal, we suggest that the Research Committee (see Chapter 5) should be actively involved in seeking and monitoring these arrangements. 4.6 Cooueration with International Development Organizations Aside from receiving financial support for special projects from several international organizations (an aspect not discussed in this section), IFTRI occasionally engages in actual research cooperation with some of these organizations. This takes two major forms: (a) joint research projects, in which staff members from both institutions work hand in hand throughout the execution of the project; and (b) IFPRI projects into which the international organizations may contribute part-time staff, consultants, data, or other intellectual inputs at various stages of the project. Collaboration of the kind described with these agencies has been infrequent, however, and in fact it has involved basically the IBRD, with which there has been strong association in a few projects. This again is understandable, given the World Bank’ s interest and concern with agricultural development policy, its own large research capacity, and its physical proximity. It is clearly of mutual advantage to keep strong linkages in research - as long as IFPRI can keep its 47 independence in policy orientation, a concern that appears to carry much weight with senior Institute staff. The other agency with which some collaboration has existed is the FAO, but it appears to be rather limited, with only one project in the consumption area. This is unfortunate because the complementarities and potential gains from cooperation would be so large and obvious. FAO units of particular interest for joint work include the Policy Analysis, Statistics, Forestry, and Research and Technology Development Divisions. Some efforts at strengthening selective collaboration with FAO would be in order. The World Food Councii may also offer opportunities. One instance of collaboration has been established with UNICEF. There are other situations of informal research contacts with other international organizations, but these cannot be properly assessedhere. On the whole, except for very specific subjects or geographic zones, there probably is not much to be gained from setting working arrangements with these other organizations and IFPRI should not be unduly concerned with the subject. 4.7 Cooneration with CGIAR Institutes IFPRI is unique within the CGIAR system in the sense that it is the only centre specialized in social science research. From the system’ s viewpoint, IFPRI is expected to complement the work of the other IARCs and contribute to enhancing the potential impact of technological advances in the agric-.dtural sciences by helling improve the policy :nilieu surrounding farmers in the developing world, especially the small ones. This general view should be extended to include some of the as yet non-CGIAR centres, which otherwise are akin to the IARCS. Since other IARCs also have their own economic or social science staff and work programmes, there is a question of definition of IFPRI’ s responsibilities vis-a-vis other centres. The broadly accepted view in the CGIAR system is that the crop or agroecological-zone centres have to be micro-economics oriented, looking at technology assessmentand farm or se&oral-level issues specifically concerning the commodities or resourCe problems in their mandates. On the other hand, IFPRI should be more market-, sector- and macro-oriented, it being better equipped to assesslarger issues of development strategy, sectoral non-crop specific questions of technology and price effects, supply and demand and national pricing policies, international trade issues of food commodities, food consumption and marketing, etc. This broad division of responsibilities cannot avoid some overlap of work, which however may be desirable if the research emphasis or approach by each is different. The complementarities between IPPRI and the other centres under this distribution of work are obvious; the biology-based IARCs can benefit substantially in their agricultural research function from a better understanding and improvement of the policy environment. The foregoing strategy for distribution of work would require joint planning by IFPRI and the IARCs (particularly among the economic programme leaders). Alternatively, IFPRI should rule itself out of those micro-economic research topics that are to be studied by the IARCs. In practice, neither one of these alternatives has been explicitly followed. Given the size of the CGIAR system, there has been little risk of duplication of effort so far. Thus, though far from ideal, the tendency has been for each centre to work largely on its own, with all pursuing pretty much independently their respective perceived priorities. 48 This is not to say that some formal inter-centre collaboration does not exist. In fact, IFPRI has established several links with other IARCs for collaborative research in the field. The closest association is that involving outposted IFPRI staff for extended periods of time, which has been done with IRRI, ICRISAT and ILCA The earliest outposting of an IFPRI fellow was at SRRI in 1980, to work on Irice price policies in Asia and later on policies for agricultural diversification in the Philippines. There has been a long and cohesive association of the two centres around these research themes. At ILCA, an outlposted post-doctoral fellow is working on a famine research project in the Sudan and Ethiopia, examining rural market performance and household food security strategies. Two other IFPIRI fellows are outposted at ICRISAT sub-centres in Niger and Zimbabwe, the first on the project analyzing coarse grain production and consumption in West Africa, and the second on policy research related to sorghum and millet production in the SADCC area. At present, and partly due to the increasing CGIAR emphasis on Africa, collaboration appears to be closest between IFPRI and ICRISAT. Although the physical presence of IFPRI fellows naturally induces closer collaboration with the host centres’ econ.omics research, it must be recognized that often these arrangements have been driven more by the convenience of placing IFPRI staff at sister centres for the ptrrpose of executing IFPRI projects than by an explicit strategy to do joint research on a mutually agreed upon topic of priority concern. Other forms of inter-centre collaboration include the provision or exchange of data (IRRI, ICRISAT, CIMMYT, CIP); joint analysis and publications on topics such as supply and demand of cassava (IITA, CIAT), the economics of barley (ICARDA), technological changes in wheat production in China (CIMMYT), and resource degradation in the Peruvian Amazon (CIAT); joint preparation and submission of projects for external funding (IRRI, WARDA); advice on programming policy research (ILCA); and staff participation in IFPRI workshops and seminars. ISNAR presents a special case for collaboration, in the sense that it should offer abundant opportunities for joint work with IPPRI in field projects, training, and other activities, because of the overlapping mandates in the general area of “research on agricultural researchl”. However, with the exception of a joint review of the Research System of Bangladesh, such collaboration has hardly taken place. IPPRI’ s European office has been established within ISNAR, but this means cooperation only on the administrative side. In the immediate future, a special effort should be made to explore and exploit areas of complementarity between these two centres, particularly in light of current thinking in the CGIARDAC about new initiatives and reformulation of old ones. Replies to a letter sent out by the TAC Secretariat to IARC directors for this EPR confirm the foregoing general review and assessmentof the nature of collaboration. All centres to a larger or lesser degree are supportive of and interested in IPPRI’ s policy research, and favour continued or closer association in research . They all stress that IFPRI should focus more on the pressing sectoral macro-issues which the IARCs have no possibility of addressing. But one does not get the impression that there is an overwhelming enthusiasm or urge on anybody’ s part to engage in more complex schemes to increase or strengthen inter-centre cooperation on economic policy analysis. In addition to collaboration with the CGIAR centres, IFPRI does joint research with IIMI on a long-term project to assessirrigation performance in Asia and Africa, and with the 49 IFDC on a large fertilizer-use study in Africa. The latter involves outposting an IFPRI fellow to the IFDC~ogo office. In the future, as the CGIAR expands its programmes to cover new initiatives in forestry and the environment, horticulture, fisheries, and other commodities, there will be increasing need for policy research in all of these areas. This raises an important question regarding the projected role of IFPRI in the system and how it can be equipped to perform such a role. The contribution of IFPRI in these fields is clearest in the case of environmental policy, as the underlying complex economic and social issues cut across all commodities and regions served by other IARCs. There would be a significant advantage for the whole CGIAR system in having IFPRI analyze the importance and effects of the environmental and sustainability factors involved with commodity-specific technology generated by the IARCs. Indeed, this is a dimension that the proposed new environmental programme at IFPRI should take into specific consideration. Closer inter-IARC collaboration in the social sciences would be advisable. IFPRI should take a leadership role within the CGIAR system to promote and strengthen professional communications and coordination with other centres in the social sciences. There are many ways to go about this, but a starting point may be the organization of annual or biannual seminar meetings of the eentres’economic and social science research staff. IFPRI could serve as a clearing house for all CGIAR socia; science work, which would place it in an ideal position to stimulate and help implement joint research and outreach activities of z. cross-country nature (projects, training, conferences, etc.;. 4.8 Assessment and Recommendations IFPRI has been generally very effective in reaching out towards the developing countries, institutions and professionals to which its policy research and capacity-building are primarily directed. It strongly emphasizes, as it should, collaborating with the relatively poorer countries, and understanding and solving policy issues that most affect the small farmer and the poor and malnourished people. IFPRI’ s efforts and effectiveness however have been uneven, both with respect to the kinds of outreach activities performed and the impact achieved at the country level. This is, in part, due to the great differences in “absorptive capacity” among countries. We recommend that IFPRI reinforce its outreach and capacity-building functions generally. However, the Institute must first clearly define the goals of its outreach activities and develop a strategy in this area - especially in regard to the various modalities of training. Management of outreach activities must be professionally organized by the Director of Outreach, as is recommended in Chapter 5, keeping in mind that IFPRI researchers should be relieved as much as possible of routine administration, so that their time for research and substantive outreach be protected. Training of developing-country policy researchers is an explicit component in IFPRI’ s mandate, though in a somewhat restricted form. IF’ PRI has been effective in training through involvement of significant numbers of LDC researchers in its projects, in the field and at headquarters. But this effort is insufficient to accomplish the goal of improving the developing countries’ capacity for food policy-making. 50 We recommend that the Institute continue its in-service training and that it broaden its activities to include more formal teaching of policy research. While we do not propose a specific modus operandi, we suggest that short courses be offered in the field with IFPRI staff and country collaborators doing the teaching, and using IFPRI research reports as exercise materials. ‘ rrdesuggest that in-service training of visiting researchers at headquarters be better structured and monitored, involving a broader exposure to the work of IFPRI research staff, so as to increase the value and e:ffectiveness of this activity. IFPRI’ s holding of conferences, seminars and workshops has been remarkably successfui,in terms of quantity, quality, participants and geographic spread of these events. These are of great value for information of policy makers, for training, and to achieve policy impact. This effort should be vigorlously continued and organized whenever possible, in association w.ith institutions of collaborating developing countries. We recommend that these events be increasingly focussed on the front- line issues ;and current agricultural policy debate of concern to the developing world. Senior IFPRI research fellows should take major responsibility for selecting and implementing these activities. We suggest that these outreach activities be planned carefully and with sufficient lead time, and that they be bett’ er linked with the Institute’ s research priorities and strategy. IFPRI has done extremely well in producing quality publications from its research, and broadly distributing them to the relevant food policy and research community. This activity must be continued unimpaired, with on11 minor adjustments for further irrprovement, as suggested earlier in this chapter. We recommend that IFPRI devote greater effort to the collecting and synthesizing of research findings around well-defined topics or themes, and publish these as books or major reports. We suggest that IFPRI consider the selective translation of a few of its publications, into French and perhaps Spanish, to make them accessible to a wider policy-making and academic: audience in the developing, countries. IFPRI has been very successful in establishing extensive linkages with developingcountry institutions and researchers in the food and agriculture policy field. These linkages are, however, essentially tied to on-going research projects, and are not otherwise structured for longrun collaboration. We recommend that IFPRI lay out and implement a strategy for follow-up activities, once projects are terminated, and devise other mechanisms to secure sustained contacts and collaboration with the relevant developing- country policy and research community, not only in the area of research, but also training, conferences and other joint activities. We suggest that consideration be given to the organization of regional policy networks, in which IFPRI should play a catalytic role. We also suggest that IFPRI pay special attention to involving its research collaborators, as much as possible, into the early stages of project selection, formulation and design, as well as 51 into the later stages of data analysis and write up, so as to give them a greater training opportunity and sense of professional participation. Linkages between IFPRI and developed-country institutions and scholars are numerous, but mostly of an informal nature. The Institute is, perhaps, not taking maximum advantage of its nature and location to obtain intellectual inputs for its research and outreach operations. We suggest that IFPRI seek to establish more formal links or agreements with top research institutions of the developed countries. These should both reinforce the research and training activities of the Institute, as well as serve to maintain and up-grade the research competence of IFPRI’ s fellows. Cooperation between IFPRI and international organizations in the actual conduct (not funding) of research and outreach activities has been limited. There is scope however for expanded collaboration in many areas where there are eomplementarities. We suggest that IFPRI make a special effort to collaborate in research and outreach activities (especially training) with the IBRD and FAO in particular. There is ample need and justification for close cooperation in the social sciences between IFPRI and other CGIAR institutes. Joint activities have been established with some IARCs, in research, training and administrative functions, but on the whole there is not a mutually active, closely knit programme of collaboration among CGIAR Centres in the policy research area. We suggest that IFPRI take the initiative, seeking to establish firmer professional communications and coordination with CGIAR centres in economic and other social science research. While we have no specific agenda to propose, we suggest that IFPRI consider organizing annual or biannual seminar meetings of the centres’ social science research staff, which may serve as a starting point for further joint ventures. We suggest also that IFPRI’ s Director should bring to the attention of the other IARC’ s directors the need to develop and implement a joint strategy to better exploit the complementarities among centres in research, training and other outreach functions in the social sciences. 52 CHAPTER 5 - STRUCIURE AND h4ANAGEMEN’ I. OF RESEARCH1’ 5.1 Stvle of Leadership John Mellor was an inspiring leader of IFBRI. He believed that IFPRI should be run rather like an academic department: have good people, let them innovate, keep administration to a minimum. The assu,mption is that it is better to give scientists their lead, give them general guidance and judge thlem ex-post than to carefully plan their work ex-ante, which stifles :innovative thinking and creativity. His vision of what IFPRI was to be and his ability to communicate it, his strong hand on the Institute’ s management, and his insistence on the quality of the research were effective in the early years to help the young unknown institute find its way, develop its identity and establish a high reputation. The Board and the staff were content to follow this cha.rismatic leader and accepted his autocratic style as a fair price to pay because IFPRI prospered under him. The style of leadership inevitably affects how research is organized and managed. A few scientific leaders really are dictators and simply tell people what to do. More commonly,, autocratic scientific leaders determine the main lines of the research (strategy), don’ t like being questioned, but leave their staff to get on with their work (tactics,), while retaining the power to take all the key decisions. Far such leaders, who are often very able at spotting talent, problems begin to arise when their young researchers, whom t’ ley picked themselves, begin to mature and need to think for themselves and question decisions if they, in turn, are to develop into leaders. To remain effective, the origi;lal leader has to begin to delegate. The advantage of the autocratic style is that there is no doubt about who is the: boss. Decisions are taken, and these are taken without recourse to committees and long meetings. It can work well while an organization is young and relatively small. But with increasing ag:eand size and a larger span of control for the leader, errors inevitably begin to be made, and it becomes increasingly necessary to delegate responsibility, to spell out regular procedures and to follow them if decisions are not to appear to be arbitrary and only taken at the whim of the leader. The alternative to autocracy is a more participatory form of organization. A group of people may share a vis.ion and agree that one of them is to be the recognized leader. However, such a leader has to accept that his/her strategy, plan and decisions will be challenged and questioned repeatedly. Decisions may be delayed and sometimes agreed only after long Imeetings. But if the participants acquire sufficient patience and fluidity to make such an organization work, then, as it grows, they learn from each other and able people are ready to take charge of different parts of the enlarging organization and share leadership responsibilities as necessary. Of Icourse, these are extremes, anld more commonly one finds that leadership in actual institutions is’ somewhere on an axis in between the very autocratic and the very participatory. At IFPRI, the vision was John Mellor’ s, and so was the strategy, even if the strategy was in his head. The Institute became very productive and was probably near its peak at the time of the EMR in 1984, which recognized the need for more staff to participate in management and to reduce the administrative load on the Director. Some changes were made but did not work well. The most important recommendation - to appoint a Deputy Director - was not followed, although the Board claimed that this recommendation reinforced their view that such a person was needed. ” This chapter is drafted jointly by program and management review panels and appears in both repxts. 53 The centralized management style, increasingly felt by many of the staff as oppressive, was retained at the top. IFPRI continued to grow, doubling in size, bringing new problems for the Management and exacerbating the inherent weaknesses of the way the Institute was run. A series of unfortunate decisions and conflicts led eventually to the management crisis of 1990. The occurrence of this crisis reflects the failure of the Management and the Board to adapt to the changed, much enlarged institute that IFFRI had become, a failure demonstrated by the fact that when a Director was needed for the next year, the Board could not find one within IFPRI. We believe that it was very appropriate for IFPRI in its early years to permit the research in the relatively new area of Food Policy to be very explorative in order to discover what lines would be really worth pursuing. This approach was not only appealing but also very successful. This very success,which continued in research, no doubt obscured the need for change as the Institute grew rapidly and undertook many more special projects (which now constitute nearly half of its revenue). Strategic planning and the need for cohesion became greater, requiring a change in management style and a greater recognition that, as a CC center, IFPRI had to be a mission-oriented institute. The leadership given to IFPRI has brought it to where it is; it says much for the strength of that initial impetus, that despite the deterioration of aspects of management from 1985 onwards, the Institute has remained productive. 52 IFPRI% Present Qreanizational Structure In this section we will look first at the organization of research, then of outreach, then administration, and finally the structure and role of committees. 5.21 Research As regards research, we need to distinguish between the organization which is supposed to exist, and that which actually exists. Theoretically it is a matrix, with vertical programmes, each led by a Programme Director, and horizontal areas, led by Research Coordinators. This is shown in Figure 5.1. The matrix at IFPRI is difficult to understand. The idea that there are cross-cutting themes embracing aspects of the programmes on Food Production, Food Consumption, etc. is itself comprehensible and even appealing, until one looks at the chosen themes (called “research areas”). One, but only one (Africa), is regional. A second, Technology, is virtually just another way of describing an existing programme (Production). A third, (Poverty), is so broad that it could encompass the programme of the whole institute. Therefore these research areas are not a coherent set which comprise logical components of a unifying strategy. This does not mean that the concept of cross-cutting themes or areas is wrong in itself. Matrix management is used in some research organizations, including some CGIAR centres. The vertical divisions may be between disciplinary departments (e.g. plant breeding, pathology, biochemistry etc.) and the horizontal divisions between commodity programmes composed of research projects. Each project has a leader and a defined objective, budget and life-span, and a particular multi-disciplinary team. The administrative home of a scientist is in one 54 FIGURE 5.1. Theoretically Existing Matrix for the llaMgaen t of Research at IFPRI Programs Areas Development Res. Coord. Food Data Evaluation Program2 Direc:tor Trade and Food Security Program Director i Technology Res. Coord. I Poverty Res. Coord. Africa Res. Coord. Food Aid Res. Coord. disciplinary department but his/her &me is divided between one or more projects. When a project is completed the scientist returns to his/her disciplinary department, perhaps to carry out some rather more basic research, or to be reassigned to another project. Such a discipline-project matrix enables one to examine “programmes” (the totality of projects) in at least two ways: from the point of view of disciplines (the plant breeding program, the pathology programme etc.,), which is the responsibility of heads of departments; and from the point of view of projects on the same commodity (the wheat program, the rice program, etc.) or with shared non-commodity objectives (e.g., the environment program). This is shown in Figure 5.2. It is the general tiiew of IFPRI scientists that the IFPRI matrix does not work and actually is a fiction. This is so for several reasons. In the first place, Programme “Directors” do not direct. At present, programmes have such small budgets that a Programme Director cannot effectively allocate resources to particular activities (projects); he also does not direct the activities of his staff, and is often not involved in engaging them for the program. At IFPRI in recent years, staff have often been engaged by the Director with little or no involvement of the Programme Directors. The Programme Directors have, however, had some administrative functions (they receive statements of prloject expenditure and project reports) and they have to describe the activities going on within their program, etc. However, budgeting is not by programme but by project. Secondly, Research Area Coordinators have no authority at all that relates to their areas: no budget, no involvement in the engagement of staff, no meaningful function. There are. very few research projects which were designed to bring several programmes together in the designated areas, and the only activity in the areas is the writing of a series of books. The idea that these 55 books need to be written may be very good: a synthesizing activity to show how aspects of different programmes in fact relate to each other and to policy questions. They can also highlight gaps in existing research. The Research Coordinators are supposed to secure the cooperation of appropriate scientists to collaborate in the writing of these books but have no effective means to do this other than personal powers of persuasion. Needless to say, IFPRI staff are committed to their own research and the writing of books in a research area may not be high in their own list of priorities. FIGURE 5.2. Matrix knageamt at a Hypothetical Crops Research Xmtitute Cmmtodities Project Project Project 1. Project 2. Project 3. Project Leader Leader Leader A. B. C. Project Project 4. Project 5. Project Leader Leader D. E Project Project Project 7. Project 8. Project 9. Project Leader G Lead !r H Lea&>r I X indicates that one or more staff are drawn from those departments for the project concerned. Curiously, IFPRI’ s research is presented in the Medium-Term Programme and Budget Plan 1988-92 in terms of Research Areas, and in its Annual Reports in terms of Programmes; curiously because, as already stated, resource allocation is neither by Programmes nor by Areas. The real focus of activity at IFPRI is the project. There are over fifty projects in all. Each project has been conceived by the Project Director, together with the Institute Director. Tbe key steps required his approval (except in one Program, no approval or even consultation was sought from the Programme “Director” or from the Research Area Coordinators) and, after donor funds were obtained, the decisions regarding how to implement the project, what staff to engage etc. were, again, taken by the Institute Director and the Project Director. Formal approval for engaging staff was supposed to be given by the Programme Director, but he would not know the budgets of the projects or the salaries of the staff. The decisions as to which programme a project was to belong to were taken by the Institute Director and sometimes made no sense to anyone else. 56 This actual structure cannot be easily illustrated by a figure. The EMR panel’ s view is, shown in Figure 5.3. This figure only shows lines from the Institute Director to Project Directors, some of whom bave more than one Project; the figure should really show one line for each project. It is hard to know how Programme Directors should be shown in such a diagram as they are also Project Directors in their own right. Two related questions may be asked about the present organization of research. Is it manageable at all, and is there, despite the multiplicity of projects, some coherence of themes in the different programmes? The current system did work up to a point, partly because of the authority given to Project Directors, and partly because the former Director was a prodigiously hard worker with a great intellectual capacity. IIis highly centralized management style was effective in the days when the Institute was smaller. It has proved unsatisfactory for the larger institute that IFPRI has bec:ome. It has become impossible to manage the Institute’ s research activities through the present organizational structure; no individual can play the dominating and integrating role that the structure demands, and also fulfill all the other roles which a Director is expected to play.Internal Internal coherence ,varies between programmes (see EPR Report, Chapter 3). The greatest coherence is in the programmes on International Trade and Food Security, and on IFood Consumption and Nutritialn, partly because they each have some significant major projects to which smaller projects can relate. Least coherent in theme is the large programme on Food Production, which, in fact, houses projects in distinctly different research fields (farm management, factor markets, and public goods). Obviously, internal coherence in a programme increases the likelihood of productive results being achieved and of eventual impact, and also facilitates effective management. A third question which has become really critical for IFPRI is the current balance between “hard” money (core) and “soft” money (non-core, mainly special projects) (see EMR Report, Chapter 5). Table 5.1 shows the revenue contributions by different donors, and raises concerns about the consequences of having become so dependent on soft money and a few large donors. Three issues arise: (i) Efficiency: soft money is bound to have an influence on the kind of research carried out; it will rarely if ever provide “seed,, money (see Section 4 of this chapter) for preproject preparation, or give the research scientist, after completion of the final project report, time for reflection; the pressure will be to begin another soft money project immediately; (ii) Equity: an innovator, successful in obtaining soft money, may remain indefinitel,y dependent on special projects, whereas a mediocre research worker may be given security by being given core funding; (iii) Continuity: donors change their minds; politics play an important role; and there are fashions in development policies, not necessarily well-based on systematic analysis. An institute too reliant on soft money may be at the mercy of the whims of the donors. 57 Figure 5.3. The EMR Panel's View of the of Research at IFPRI Current Organization fnguisftfve Progriim Director 0 Project Directors l Projects %9b %Ib %ZE 40 % se 73aCold 1 eJO% ie!oadS %8'bS %9'Sb X2'8b toloads SJclaroJd 40 % se awsn %ES %SI %8E !?66! %6b x91 XEE 6861 XIS %61 XZE 8861 1 em 40 x se afi ~8 awsn lew lw7 40 % se 8fi 40 % se awsn *anuahau TDacoJd 93 pagsiJ%sau pue le!ctadS I sapyou! ~1~11 l OOO'b6b'ZI$ 000'688S OOO'fb8'1$ 000'bIf'bf OOO'bbE$ 000'269$ ooo'szs ooo'rzIs OOO'fbs OOO'bfZS OOO'ZSbt 000'01f$ 000'8EsS ooo'oss 000'102s ooo'ooss 000'901S OOO'bZC$ OOO'Ef 000'01S OOO'OPSS ooo'fss OOO'bbZ$ ---a_------_ lV101 000'2Sf'4$ 000'0299 000'602s OOO'ISI'ES OS OOO'S6bt OS ooo'r2IS ooo'rIs :~0~202s OS 000'112S OS 000'102s OOO'ZEE$ OOO'Zbf'9t 000'692s 000;8E9:1$ EXY Zf8'196'01f OSI'OZS'PS 22f 'Ibb'9$ E6E'TbIs 000'009'1$ 201'89b'6$ OSb'OSbS E98'Eff'IS GOP'SEO'ES ;;;:'6;;; OS LEG'ZPZS 8b8'EEf Eb6'620'ES SZb'92Ef E98'E6$ 60b'09b'I$ OS PIf 'b2If OS fE6'2bZf it !&SEf 089'9bIs OS 651'8Eb'9$ SZO'bZIs 000'089'1$ ooo'sfs'1s 92O'SSES 826'bbI$ i: 8bB'EfS lVlO1 la1110 pue vmu3sahuI we8 PlJOfi awsn 7.n puel-wfis ueds JallaJaq3oti uoi7epunoj sauvJdtiNd XPMJON spuei-rlwd ueder 4ea ww 3401 Kueuuag -. ,aura, uo~~epunvj +oj VdWtkW3 w43 vo13 um!6lafl e!le4snV ------------------------MONOO co In 899’ OffS ffO’ 29f ‘ IS IEO'PES'ES OOS'ZEES fb8'8ISS ooo's2S 289'992s SZS'ZPS Sf2’ 629S LfO’ Z9IS IE0’ 6S0’ 2$ !;O'fSE$ OS 289'9925 S2S'21$ OS ;.;:;s': 60I'E62$ OS 8CZ'SII$ 09f 'b82$ OS Z9b'211$ 99E'ZSS OS OS OS 089'Ob$ __--m--_--_ 13Y01d r lVI33dS 000’ sfs’ ~s OOS'ZEE$ 218'191s ooo's2s OOO'OE$ OOO’ f6IS ooo's2$ iiO'OE$ OOO’ bfZ$ 1 ~IiEE ;;;:;g ii0'891t 000'901s ooo'osIs OS 000'01S OOO'ObS$ 2f S ‘ 022s SSI'POES 2f s’ o2zs , ::4’ :zf SfE'SbIs 000 'OSS OS 8S9'29It 699'965 ooo'osIS OS 000'01S SZS'EOSS fbf ‘ 6Sl$ b6I'IbZf 6II'E28t Ob6'062f ooo'oss 6f6'fES fbf ‘ 6SIf b6I'IbZf 8Sf’ SSfS b8b‘ 8Eb$ ooo'osS OEZ'SII$ b6S’ f8f$ 092'bbIt ooo'oss OS fEI'6fIS 6f6’ fEs 8Ib’ fbbS 699’ 96s 29b'ZSZS 9ff’ I6SS OfS’ 98S IEZ'6SZt ISf '91s 000'01S SEO'SSbs 199'62s b26'bZZf ----------lV101 k!O’ bf I$ OOO'ES OS OS OS 000'01$ -----------13X01d 6f9’ 2Ibf OS If2’ 6OIf ISf '91s OS OS OS OfS’ 99$ ooo'osIS ~~0~01s SfO'SSbs 199'62s bEI'202t w---------93 99E ‘29s 000'01S 92S'EOSt EIL'SSS 081'962s _----------lVlO1 000’ fss OOO'bEZf ----------93 s lVI33dS ----__-_-_---__-------------------------(PaJa6Pw) 0661 EIL ‘ 9SS oos’ ss2s --m-------93 06f ’ 22s _--------__ 133rOtld v lVI33dS ----_-_--------------------------------(1enW') 6861 _--------------__---------------------(LW~V) SJOUO~ Xq 8861 anuam~ 1.5 awl To sum up, the danger to which Table 5.1 alerts us is that IFPRI may become donordriven rather than strategy-driven. IFPRI needs to do some hard thinking about this, during the preparation of its long-term strategy. Thus, the main feature of the present organization of research at IFPRI is that it is project oriented. In one sense, comically emphasized in Figure 5.3, it is a highly centralized structure. It is also decentralized, in the sense that considerable responsibilities have been delegated to the large number of Project Directors. However, it has weakened the authority of the Programme Directors as they have had their management responsibilities reduced, has led to weak cohesion in some of the programmes, and a budgeting process fundamentally at odds with setting major priorities derived from a strategy. In addition, the issues arising from the heavy reliance on soft money are a cause for concern. 5.2.2 Management of outreach Talking to IFPRI staff, it is not always clear what is meant by “outreach”. For some, “outreach” seems to include any activity involving collaboration with people outside IFPRI. In this Report, “outreach” is used to cover the activities which disseminate the results of IFPRI’ s activities to the outside world, training, both formal and informal, and participation in policy debates. Thus, the H hole publications activity is part of outreach. So are major conferences and workshops held, for 6 sample, at the end of a large project. Then there is training, in the IFPRI sense of that term: t,aining on-the-job, i.e., projects designed to involve collaboration with scientists and administrators in developing countries so that they become able to conduct such research themselves. Finally, there is the attempt to influence policy formation more directly, by running policy seminars, producing policy briefs, as well as occasional more substantial papers. In the past, this latter activity was very much the prerogative of the former Director. At the present time, IFPRI has an excellent Information Services Unit, which includes the Library. The work of this Unit (see EPR Report, Chapter 4, Section 3) other than the Library, is concerned with disseminating the results of IFPRI’ s research to the outside world. The External Relations Unit is concerned with organizing and running policy seminars, and liaison with the European Office and the European Advisory Committee. Thus, the bulk of the work of the Information Services Unit and of the External Relations Unit is concerned with outreach, as defined above, but the two units are administratively separate. The Library provides a highly valued service specific to the research staff in IFPRI but is placed on the administrative side of the organization. We question whether these are the ideal arrangements (see 53.3). 5.2.3 Administration The former Director regarded administration as a regrettable necessity, believing that it should be kept at a minimum and that any changes there should follow changes in the organization of research. That would be completely acceptable if the functions were performed well and provided the support which the research needed. Fortunately there was, until March 1990, an effective and well-liked Director of Finance and Administration, with overall 60 responsibility for finance, personnel, support services, information, etc., described in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EMR Report. Figure 5.4 (which is IFPRI’ s most recent organization chart, dated February 1990) shows all ,the research activities on the left, under the Director, and all the nonresearch activities on the iright, under the Director of Finance and Administration. All the functions have been carried out well except for personnel. IFPRI has not had a trained andi experienced personnel manager for some years and therefore, despite the efforts of the devoted junior staff, important personnel functions have been neglected (see EMR Report, Chapter 4). In June 1990 the Dlirector appointed a Director of Development and Administration .in place of a Director of Finance and Administration. Like virtually all the staff, we are unable to understand the rationale of combining development (fund-raising and so on) together with administration in one post. The senior administrative officer of the Institute needs to be a very experienced person in all the previously mentioned administrative functions. On the other hand, whoever is responsible for development needs to have a thorough understanding of the research of the Institute in order to be able to present it to clients and donors, and to command the respect of the scientific staff. It is unreasonable to expect one person to be able to do well in both. 5.2.4 Committeels Subsequent to the eliminaticn of the post of Director of Finance and Administration in March 1990, and in response to IFPRI’ s Self-Study, the management committees at IFPRI, all with an advisory function, were as shown in Table 5.2. The Management Committee was constituted very recently; the other committees had existed previously, though in some cases, changes were made in their composition. The Director’ s Advisorv Committee (recently renamed Programme Directors’ Committee) functioned well until about 1985. It then consisted of the Institute Director, the Programme Directors, and the Director of Finance and Administration. It met frequently, often weekly., and discussed matters of substance, in particular, the programmes of the Institute and its policy. Later, the Director did not attend and the committee met less frequently. It tended to discuss administration, and was used to announce decisions taken by the Director. Of the other committees, the Research Areas Committee and the Administrative Rev& Committee have failed to function. The Appointments Review Committee was abolished in 1986 and appointments have often been made, especially since then, without consulting staff or in conformity with agreed procedures. The Publications Review Committee has carried out its important function well. Obviously, it is not possible to say how the Manapement Committee might have functioned. In the absence of representation from the Programme Directors it is difficult to see that it would or could have tackled the fundamental issue of the allocation of resources not just between research and non-research activities, but between major research activities, whether by programmes or projects. Figure 5.4 IFPRI's Present Organizational Structure Program Directors' Cotnnittee I Director of External Relations 1 Development Strategy i-i i i Program i i /i I I Tecpho;y;y ' -ii II I IIl~ik$iA:2iiam~ IAfr’ ca~iF~~~ --II L-u '-"ii' [Poverty II . . LPer 62 Table Hanaqemnt 5.2 Cannittee Management Conkttees at IFPRI from March 1990 The Director Senior Policy Advisor Director, Development & Administration (with the advice of the I-lead, Personnel & Administrative Services) Proqram Directors' Comsittee (previously Director's Atzsory Committee) Director Senior Policy Advisor Director, Development and Administration The Program Directors Chairman, Publications Review Cornnittee Director, External Relations Secretary: (Head, Personnel & Administrative Services, to support Program Directors in administrative matters) Function: to consider major policy issues of the Institute, promotions and salaries. Function: research research to review and analyze IFPRI's Advise on senior programs. appointments. Research Areas Gmsittee Function: "to to research give greater areas.responsibilities The Research Area Coordinators Senior Policy Advisor Chairman: Director of External Relations Secretary: (until March 1990, the Director was the Chairman) Publications Chairman: Review A Research Cam&m Fellow Function: "to advise the Director on publication policy and specific publications." Review of IFPRI Research Reports. Administrative Chairman: Review A Program Cansiib Director Function: to advise the Director on administrative problems and likely Previously existed, and was solutions. supposed to meet quarterly but has only met twice in four years. Amointments Chairman: Review A Research Cansittcgg Fellow Abolished 1966. Met annually. 63 5.3 ~&ions for Improvinpr IFPRI% Br~ankational Strumre The way a research organization is structured needs to follow the strategy of the Institute. What structure makes sense for IFPRI now? What weight should be given to research and to non-research activities? Since we do not know what strategy IFPRI will formulate for itself, hopefully in the near future, we can only offer some suggestions for improvements in the structure. These suggestions are options for consideration though some specific recommendations are made. They are intended to strengthen IFPRI’ s senior and middle management and to facilitate a planning process which will be closely linked to the allocation of resources. 5.3.1 Research One thing is clear: regardless of the eventual details of the organization, the DirectorGeneral (as the Director may soon be called, as in almost all other CG centers) needs a deputy to support him/her in his/her many and demanding responsibilities. We therefore strongly recommend the appointment of a Deputy Director-General (DDG) for Research and Development. Such an appointment is long overdue. We envisage that the DG will play a principal role in the development function, in negotiations with donors, liaison with other IARCs etc. but that he/she will need the assistance of an experienced and effective deputy. It would be a serious mistake to see the post of DDG merely as a high level administrative assistant. If the DG is also acting as the Director of Research, then the DG would chair the Research Committee (see below), and the DDG would be the deputy for the non-research activities (see Figure 5.5). On the other hand, if the DG, though an experienced and respected research scientist, has primarily a management role, then the DDG would be a research scientist of high calibre, act as the Director of Research and chair the Research Committee (see Figure 5.6) In either case, the DDG would act as DG in the latter’ s absence, with effective authority. We now have to consider how the research itself is to be structured. The EPR panel recommends that IFPRI concentrate on six programmes in future. The Production Programme would be divided into two (and named as IFPRI find most appropriate); and the other four will be: Food Consumption; Trade; Development Strategies (formerly Growth Linkages); and Natural Resources and Environment. The programmes should be redefined to ensure cohesion and disciplinary balance, and each should have a minimum critical mass of staff and resources; at present, the programmes are too unequal in size. Each programme should be headed by a Programme Director with clearly defined responsibility for that program, not only financial and administrative, but also professionally for all the stafE We recommend that Programme Directors be given greater authority to manage their programmes. Research areas, as structural elements in the organization, would be abolished, but this does not mean that IFPRI does not need to examine cross-cutting themes (see Section 5.4). 5.32 Outreach The EPR Panel emphasizes that IFPRI in future will need to be more concerned with capacity building, “country policy reviews and global visions” (EPR Report, Section 5.4.1) and the Figure 5.5 One Possible Organizational Structure for IFPRI Board of Trustees I Director-General Research Cornnitte I- Senior Management Cormiittee Deputy Director-General I I I Prog. Dir. Production I I Prog. Dir. Production II I I Prog. Dir Food Consumption I Prog. Dir. Trade 1 Prog. Dir. Natural Resources and Environment 1 Prog. Dir. Development Strategies i Director, Outreach I Director, Finance Administration & 1 Information Services I Training I - External Relations Finance Personnel Computer svcs. Admin. svcs. Figure 5.6 Another Possible Organizational Stratutw for IFPRI Board of Trustees Director-General I -Senior Management Ccausittee Deputy I ' i ffi Research Comittee I Prog. Dir. Production I I I I I I Prog. Dir. Production I II Prcg. Dir Food Consumption Prog. Dir. Trade Prog. Dir. Natural Resources and Environment Prog. Dir. Development Strategies Director, Outreach I I j Director: Finance Administration & I Information Services 1 Training I I I 1 External Relations Finance Personnel Ccmputer svcs. Admin. svcs 1 66 importance of high level policy seminars and the preparation of Policy Briefs (EPR Report, Section 4.2). As noted above, this activity has been dominated by the former Director, who was certainly very able in this field, but now IFPRI needs to encourage its Senior Research Fellows to become more active in this area. We believe, therefore, that all the activities previously defined as outreach (publications, conferences, training, policy seminars) should be combined under one head. We recommend the creation of a position for and recruitment of a Director of Outreach which combines the present functions of Information Services and External Relations. The person recruited would need to be a respected scientist who understands the policy issues and can participate in training as well as be able to organize conferences and seminars. 5.3.3 Administration If a DDG is appointed and, together with the DG, is responsible for development at the level of Senior Management, then the present post of Director of Development and Administration will have to be changed. What IFPRI needs is what it had before, namely, a Director of Finance and Administration, effectively supported by the present staff and a properly managed personnel function. We recommend the reestablishment of the position for and recruitment of a Director of Fmance and Administration. (The appointment of a full-time, properly qualified Personnel Manager, is recommended in EMR Report, Chapter 4). As far as support services are concerned, recommendations in the EPR Report will require some changes to be made. The EPR recommends that research on food data evaluation should not continue, but that the data bank of secondary information needs to be maintained, a task which could be assigned to the Computer Services Unit. In addition, there is need for a primary data bank based on tlhe household surveys, and for statistical and econometric expertise. The question arises as to ,where, administratively, the staff performing these tasks should belong. A similar question applies to the Librarian, whose function - supplying information to the scientists for their research - is different from that of the rest of Information Services, who are disseminating information to the outside world. Thus, the group discussed in this paragraph is supplying special support services which are very directly linked to research. In Figures 5.5 and 5.6 they therefore belong on the left of the figure (research i.e., with the Programmes), rather than on the right (services). Where exactly they are to be placed depends on the exact structure developed at IFPRI. For administrative convenience, they could be placed in one of the programmes, or they could report directly to the DDG. The development function, as previously indicated, would be carried mainly by the DG together with the DDG. 5.3.4 Committees The new committees that would probably be needed to help the Senior Management are shown in Table 5.3. The Senior Management Committee would consist of the DG, the DDG, the Director of Finance and Administration, the Director of Outreach (combining the present The Director-Genera: The Deputy Director-General The Director, Finance L Administration The Programs Directors The Director of Outreach Institute strategy and policies; aliocetions between m3gmmes; major projects; senior appointments. The Deputy Director-General (and/or Director-General) The Programs Dire&cm Two other Research Feiiows Director of Outreach (depending on agenda) Allocations. within progrmnes and of projects to programs; preparation of major projects; technical advice to Senior luianagement. Ptbiicatitxs Review Catmittee or function. CarParittee No change AcLninistrative in structure Revi- The need for such a comittee should be ccnsiderd when the neu management structure is in place. functions of information and what is called “ExternaE Relations”) and some of the Programme Directors, serving by rotation (ail six would probably be too many). This committee would consider Institute policy questions: its strategy, its medium-term and operational plan, senior appointments, etc. The Research Committee, chaired by the DG or DDG (see X4.1), would consist of the Programme Directors, the Director of Outreach, and two Research Fellows (also serving by rotation). This committee would be primarily concerned with the content of the research programmes and projects. How these committee-s might work is described in Section 5.4. When IFPRI has developed a strategy approved by the Board and a new long-term DirectorGeneral has been appointed, other organizational options may need to be considered, but we beheve that two committees like the above will be needed. We therefore recommend that IFPRI establish a Senior Management Committee and a h Qmmittee If the DG is also the Research Director, a variation of the above structure would be not to have a DDG, and for the DG to work through the Research Committee. We would not favor that, as we believe that the workload on the DG was already too great in 1984 when the EMR recommended the appointment of a deputy, since when EPRI has doubled in size. We suggest that, to make an effective link with the Board, strengthen their involvement in IFF’ RI’ s strategy and aid their taking of decisions on the allocation of resources, the DDG for Research and Development should serve as the Secretary of the Board’ s Programme Comm.ittee (as in many other centers). 5.4 The Planning, BudFeting and Review Processes 54.1 Strategic nlarlning The CGIAR System is helping third world countries to alleviate hunger and poverty by increasing sustainable food production through agricultural research and related activities. It has a long-term strategy to achieve this and expects its centers, within that larger framework, to have their own strategy. Each center, therefore, has to define and have in mind certain goals that relate to the kind of center it is, and to indicate by what means those goals are to be reached. It is then possible to determine priorities in research and to allocate resources to different activities. IFPRI has no apprloved strategy document (see EPR Report, Chapter 2). One exists in draft, but bears very much the imprint of IFPRI’ s former Director. It is strongly felt in the Institute, and we agree completely, that IFPRI lacks a clear strategy and must develop one. For the present, what we have is IFPRI’ s Medium-Term Programme and Budget Plan 1988-92. According to this, “in setting research priorities the Institute allocates its resources to areas of policy research that promise to elucidate the complex and often dynamic interrelationships between technology, growth, and human nutrition.” However, neither from this document nor from what we have learnt from the staff, do we have the sense that strategic planning has taken place. The planning process should begin by formulating a strategy for IFPRI, including the setting of some long-term goals. We strongly recommend that IFPRI prepare a clearly articulated strategy document. This should be carried out by a participatory process in which Senior Management involve the research staff, especially the Programme Directors, the Board, administrative staff, and also IFPRI’ s key collaborators in developing countries (EPR Report, Chapter 2). Strategic planning is not an inward-looking process: it needs to take account of the interests both of clients and of stakeholders. The CG itself is in a major process of change, with new goals, proposals to include additional institutions and possibly, in due course, to merge some of the centers. It could be helpful to IFPRI to run workshops in which clients could state their needs and participate in al major dialogue on IFPRI’ s identity as this would help IFPRI to blecome more client-oriented, providing it did not unduly delay the formulation of the strategy. The strategy document resulting from such a process would be submitted to the Board for appraival and then to both TAC and the CGIAR for comment. 69 The momentum for change is there, both in the CG and in IFPRI. IFPRI needs to take this opportunity to move ahead and explore fully its strategic options. 5.4.2 Operational planning: ProPramme budpeting The preparation of IFPRI’ s next Medium-Term Plan should follow the new strategy. The main change that is needed is to move from a project- to a stratemdriven programme orientation. Each programme should have its own goals, its own budget, and be effectively led by its Programme Director. This will strengthen middle management in IFPRI. Projects will still remain important but should find their rightful place in the context of programmes. To aid this process, we suggest that IFPRI adopt the procedure which has been found to be useful in many sizeable research institutions: program-based budgeting, in which the allocation of resources is carried out at different levels. The Senior Management Committee, knowing the size of the budget, would recommend to the Board which programmes are to be pursued and the allocation of resources between them (and also to outreach and IFPRI’ s other non-research activities). Similarly, it would recommend which are to be the Institute’ s key projects (“flagship” projects), without concerning themselves with the technicalities of the research. (This is the top-down approach.) The Research Committee would consider proposals coming from the Research Fellows (bottom-up approach), including new soft-furded projecs, and recommend allocations to projects within programmes. It -. would have more of a technical al lvisory function and wculd supervise the preparation of major project proposals for Senior Management. As already noted, the suggested structures shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6, although they do not include any cross-cutting themes to constitute a matrix, do not exclude them in principle. By analogy with the more classical matrix shown in Figure 5.2, we suggest that, to be effective, a cross-cutting theme needs to be recognizable as a distinct entity, e.g., a major project with its own budget, defined life-span, staff and Project Leader. (The term “Director” has become debased in IFPRI and we suggest that it is not used below the level of Programme Director. Those in charge of projects should be given the more usual title of Project Leader). IFPRI already has some projects which overlap programmes, and projects in the Natural Resources and Environment Programme are particularly likely to cut across other programmes. We suggest that IFPRI should deliberately seek funds for major projects cutting right across the programmes in order to advance the integration of past work in the different programmes. Seed money should be provided from core funds for pre-project planning activities such as project design, review of methodologies, the development of hypotheses and the assessmentof relevance to critical policy issues, to ensure that projects are not “money-driven”. Each programme should have a number of large projects of medium- to long-term duration (the “flagship” projects) around which smaller projects could evolve. These major projects should receive priority attention from all the staff of a programme and may require the reallocation of staff. Quite naturally, in the course of time, staff may need and indeed ought to move from one 70 programme to another. ‘ This should be regarded as normal. Research Fellows should be allowed a significant say in the choice of projects in line with their personal interests, but all projects must be relevant to the goals of the Institute. As indicated previously, one of the weaknesses resulting from so much reliance of many of the staff on soft money is that they do not have time to reflect on their work after the completion of a project. This is a serious disadvantage to those staff and a loss for IFPRI, as the capacity to reflect and integrate cannot develop in an atmosphere of hectic project-chasing. Hence we recommend that part of core funds should be reserved for seed money @e-project) and folr rc&xtion and Synthesis (post-project). This recommendation means that the distinction between Research Fellows supported by core and those who are not will cease. The participatory processes which we have described should enable IFPRI’ s Senior Management to prepare its Medium-Term Plan and budget by deciding on priorities between and within programmes in accord with the goals of its strategy. 5.4.3 Monitorinlo and review There is at present no formal mechanism for sharing information amongst Research Fellows during the preparation of a project. The responsibility for ensuring that projects complement each other, fit into a programme and the overall Institute strategy, priorities and objectives, has rested entirely with the Institute Director. This being so, it becomes critical that the mechanisms for monitoring the progress of the research (“How is it going?“), for review (“Where have we got to, where should we go now?“) and for evaluation (“What has the research achieved?“) are effective. As the EPR Report stresses, a principal mechanism for this and one which has been very well carried out at IFPRI, is the whole publications program, the responsibility of Information Services. The procedures, using the Publications Review Committee and outside referees for the major publications, has worked well. Monitoring the quality of ongoing research has been the responsibility of the Project Directors, reporting to the Institute Director; there is no approved institute mechanism whereby a Programme Director can do this, and the Director’ s Advisory Committee has not carried out that function at institute level for some years. We suggest that in future regular reports on the progress of projects should be sent to the Programme Directors, who once a year or more often, as the need arises, should send a formal report on the work of the whole programme to the Institute Director. Since the 1984 EP:R, one internal programme review has been held, in 1989. This appears to have been of some benefit though it is felt that the outside experts chosen were unlikely to be publicly critical of the IFPRI programmes. However, the mechanism itself is to be commended and is one in which the research staff, members of the Board Programme Committee and outside experts can interact to asisess the quality of research. What is important is to be clear about the purpose: is it for scientists to justify what they have been doing in as favorable a light as possible, 71 or is it to share doubts, question old hypotheses and explore new ones, and attempt to see how one line of research relates to others? The Senior Management can set a very important example to the research staff by their attitude to and participation in this process. We recommend that IFPlU institute an annual internal review process which iocludes an in-depth examination of part of the Institute’ s activities each year. In the interests of improving transparency and dialogue, IFPRI might also consider occasionally inviting outside experts or peers to review the whole of a particular program. This can be particularly valuable after the completion of a major piece of research, when a significant reorientation may be required. Thus, the timing of such a review is likely to be critical and needs to be chosen carefully. Such a review is not regular or routine. We also suggest that IFPRI consider instituting an internal management review on a regular basis. The IFPRI Self-Study was immensely valuable to all the participants and to the EMR, and it will continue to help IFPRI. To a significant extent it has been the source of the momentum of change which we feel to be present at the Institute and which augurs well for the future. Assessment of the performance of the research staff is also an essential feature of an institute’ s own review mechanism, and is dealt with in Chapter 4 of the EMR Report. 72 -6-ENvIRoNMENT AGRICULT~JRJIL AL POLICY SUSTAINABILITY FOR 6.1 Rationale for IFPRI Involvement We are supportive of IITRI’ s intention to introduce into its strategy and medium-term plan a greater emphasis on environmental policy for agricultural sustainability, including forestry and fisheries. The proposal is in keeping with the suggested redefined goals of the CGIAR, as recommended by TAC in the CGIAR Expansion Paper submitted to ICW90 (AGRflACIAR/!N/24),