Research for Development IRRI's in Country Roles - IRRI books

ContentsForewordvAcknowledgmentsviExecutive summaryviiWhy an international center for rice? 1Present involvement 1History of involvement 3Criteria for involvement: history 3A summary of criteria for involvement in countries 3Modes of collaboration 12Criteria for IRRI office in country 22Criteria for differentiating involvement 25Criteria for evaluating RD&D focus 25Target and means of delivery 25Bibliography 28Web database sites 28Appendix 1. Groupings and modes of collaboration from 29previous medium-term planAppendix 2. Ten features of a good country-assistance 30strategy

ForewordThe involvement of IRRI in many countries requires that weidentify priorities among and within countries.This publication brings together relevant information thatcould be used to identify countries and areas where IRRIwould invest its scarce resources. As experience will show,however, this is not a straightforward exercise. One still hasto use other considerations, sometimes not quantifiable, toreach a decision on priority setting.Be that as it may, having a good database and an analysisof the information contained therein allows for a synopticview of the conditions, especially as they affect rice. Thissynoptic view is important in setting priorities.While we recognize that this database is at an earlystage, we hope that this compendium and its analyticalsection will be the start of a comprehensive and transparentprocess that will allow managers and researchers to determinepriorities and levels of involvement in our countryprograms.We hope that researchers and research managers willfind this work useful. We welcome suggestions on how tofurther improve the contents of this compendium and refinethe process of priority setting.WILLIAM G. PADOLINADeputy Director General, PartnershipsIRRIv

AcknowledgmentsThe contents of this paper represent the collective effortsand vision of many IRRI staff members over the past 40years of the Institute’s history. In particular, we would like tohighlight the contributions of Dr. Glenn Denning, who wasinstrumental in developing and supporting many of IRRI’scountry programs. We thank Bill Hardy for his meticulousediting of this document.vi

Executive summaryOrganizations invest in IRRI as a vehicle forincreasing impact and enhancing the livelihoodsof those poor people who depend on rice. As aresult of this investment, IRRI now has researchactivities in more than 20 countries and interactswith many more. These activities are conductedin partnership with a range of national agriculturalresearch and extension systems (NARES).The form of involvement ranges from major incountryprojects through various forms ofcollaborative research and training to informationand germplasm exchange and occasionalconsultancy visits. The purpose of this documentis to (1) document IRRI’s past and presentinvolvement in countries and (2) document thecriteria for IRRI’s involvement and the forms ofthat involvement. These criteria provide a basisfor analysis of IRRI’s activities both now and inthe future. Such ongoing analysis is required toallow for changes in country needs as theireconomies develop and needs shift. Thus, theappropriate forms of collaboration and involvementwith each country are not static but willrequire constant review.Criteria for involvementThe primary criteria for IRRI to be involved in acountry relate to (1) the significance of rice and(2) the extent of poverty. (Note: Various indicatorscan be used for both of these factors.) Aseries of other modifiers then determines theactual extent and form of involvement. Thesefactors are of two types:Country factors:1. Level of economic development2. Extent of country demand for assistance andcollaboration3. NARES capacity in terms of research anddelivery4. Opportunities for collaboration and impact(and spillover) in light of the socio-politicalsetting5. Importance of national and regional foodsecurity6. Country population7. Distance from Los BañosIRRI factors:1. IRRI comparative advantage and supplycapacity2. Availability of fundsData can then be assembled on each ofthese factors and used to analyze countrygroupings and potential IRRI investment.Forms of involvementIRRI’s broad roles can be defined as those ofprovider, facilitator, and/or collaborator. As acountry’s research, delivery, and development(RD&D) capacity grows, IRRI’s role will shiftfrom one of primarily providing to increasedlevels of facilitation and collaboration. Thethemes of collaboration can take on variousforms, including• Upstream research (e.g., genomics, biotechnology)• Strategic research (e.g., weed ecologystudies)• Applied research (e.g., technology development,evaluation, adaptation, and delivery)Collaborative research activities can include• Exchanges of• Germplasm• Prototypes• Information/knowledgevii

Research for Development: IRRI’s In-Country RolesM.A. Bell, J.A. Lapitan, and M. HossainWhy an international center for rice? 1One of every three people depend on rice formore than half of their daily food and one in nine(about 700 million) depend on rainfed rice.Ninety percent of the world’s rice is grown andconsumed in Asia, where more than half theworld’s people and about two-thirds of theworld’s poor live. Rice is also an important staplein some countries of Latin America and Africa.IRRI was originally established to helpnational systems assist farmers in developingcountries in producing more rice to improve ruralincomes and overcome chronic national foodshortages. In this, IRRI and others have beensuccessful. From 1965-67 to 1991-93, total riceproduction doubled. However, rice surpluses andlow prices in recent years have helped give thefalse impression that the world’s food productionproblems have been solved. World populationpressure is intense with about 80–100 millionadditional people needing to be fed each year. Inresponse, the world’s annual unmilled riceproduction must increase by around 8–12 milliont of milled rice per year to keep up with populationgrowth and income-induced demand forfood. At current world yield levels, this meansadding 2–3 million ha of new rice-producing landper year—land that is not available. Thus, tomeet demand and reduce drudgery, we needsustainable and improved rice production systemsthat will lead to more rice on limited landwith less water, less labor, and less chemicalinputs. We also need to achieve this withoutharming the environment.Present involvementIRRI’s broad roles can be defined as those ofprovider, facilitator, and/or collaborator. Table 1shows the current range of IRRI’s primaryresearch activities. IRRI also has a range ofother activities in more than 70 countries. Forexample, from 1995 to 2000, IRRI provided ricegermplasm to 52 countries through the InternationalNetwork for Genetic Evaluation of Rice(INGER) (Table 2). In human resource development,IRRI has around 200 participants intraining events each year. Throughout its history,IRRI has had almost 6,000 participants in shorttermgroup training and around 3,000 in degree/nondegree training from 98 countries. Many ofthose trained now hold important positions intheir government programs. Information exchangeinvolves 130 countries with the bulk ofthis—around 80% of all publication distribution—being with 20 countries (Australia, Bangladesh,Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan,IRRI is presently involved with germplasm and natural resource management research inmore than 20 countries, germplasm exchange with 52 countries, information distribution with130 countries, and training involving more than 50 countries.1This section comes in part from IRRI’s Web page.1

Table 1. Summary of IRRI activities in major rice-producing countries as of 2000.Substantial Liaison Country Network Consortia member*Country research office project memberactivity IR RL UR FPBangladesh Y Y Y HR Y (y) YBhutanPBrazilYCambodia P Y (y)China Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y (y)EgyptIndia Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y Y YIndonesia Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y YIranSPKorea (N)Lao PDR Y Y IPM Y (y) YMadagascar P P (y)Malaysia IPM YMyanmar P Y (y) (y)NepalPakistanPeruPhilippines Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y YSri Lanka HR YThailand Y Y IPM, INM Y Y Y YVietnam Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y YDeveloped countriesAustralia YFranceYJapan IJS YKorea (S) YUSAY*IR = irrigated, RL = rainfed lowlands, UR = uplands, FP = Flood-prone, IJS = IRRI-Japan Shuttle, IPM = integrated pest management, INM =integrated nutrient management, P = presently phasing down unless funding scenario changes, HR = hybrid rice, SP = special project, Y = yes,(y) = associate or observer member.Note: The Indonesia liaison office also has responsibility for Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam.Table 2. Countries collaborating with INGER, 1995-2000.Asia Africa Europe/West Asia Oceania-Pacific AmericasBangladesh Egypt Iran Australia ArgentinaBhutan Côte d’Ivoire Iraq Fiji Island BoliviaCambodia Gambia Italy Papua New Guinea BrazilChina Kenya Turkey ColombiaIndia Madagascar Turkmenistan CubaIndonesia Morocco GuyanaJapan Mozambique MexicoKorea (S) Namibia PeruKorea (N) Nigeria SurinamLao PDR Senegal USAMalaysia Sierra LeoneMyanmar South AfricaNepal TanzaniaPakistan ZambiaPhilippinesSri LankaTaiwanThailandVietnam2

Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines,South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, UK,USA, and Vietnam).History of involvementTable 3 summarizes IRRI’s historical involvementincluding the posting of in-country staffwith the major collaborating countries (researchlinkages with advanced research institutions incountries such as Australia, France, Japan, SouthKorea, and the USA are not shown).IRRI has a rich history of major projects inmore than 20 countries.Criteria for involvement: historyHistory would suggest that multiple criteriadetermine involvement with countries, involvingboth dominant factors and a series of modifiers.For example, Table 4 shows the criteria andindicators used in the previous IRRI mediumtermplan (MTP) for allocating priorities. Thesecriteria have recently been reviewed and thesuggested percent investment by ecoregion andcountry is shown in Table 5. In the case of theInternational Programs Management Office(IPMO), several criteria were added for definingthe level of involvement and mode of collaboration(see Table 4 and Appendix 1; Appendix 2shows the summarized World Bank strategy forinvolvement). In the case of the ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR), former Chairman I. Serageldin statedthat CG involvement is to be based on• A strong and unremitting focus on povertyalleviation,• Commitment to bring modern science to bearon the attainment of the new vision,• Priority to South Asia and sub-SaharanAfrica, where most of the world’s poor live,• Regional approaches to research planning,and• Close integration of CGIAR activities withthose of partners in the developing regions,including partners engaged in developmentwork.Historically, alleviating poverty, expected ricedemand, food security, sustainability, andalternative suppliers of research have beenthe key factors used to determine suggestedinvestment in countries. Gender equity,sustaining high yields, and shifting the yieldfrontier were important modifiers.The suggested order of investment from themodel by agroecological zone in Asia is warmhumid tropics (AEZ3) > warm subhumid tropics(AEZ2) > warm subhumid subtropics withsummer rainfall (AEZ6) > warm and semiaridtropics (AEZ1) > warm/cool humid subtropics(AEZ7) > warm arid and semiarid tropics withsummer rainfall (AEZ5) > cool subtropics withsummer rainfall (AEZ8).The order of investment by country or areaaccording to modified model output is India,China, Bangladesh, Africa, Indonesia, LatinAmerica, Vietnam, Myanmar/Nepal, Philippines,Pakistan, Thailand, Cambodia, Madagascar, SriLanka/Malaysia/Lao PDR, North Korea, SouthKorea, Japan.A summary of criteria for involvement incountriesDominant factors: Based on IRRI’s goal “toimprove the well-being of present and futuregenerations of rice farmers and consumers,particularly those with low income,” thedominant factors for involvement are (1) thesignificance of rice and (2) the extent of poverty(with various indicators that can be used foreach) (Table 6). These factors can then be usedto group countries according to various factors(e.g., Figures 1–18 and Tables 7 and 8). (Itshould be noted that the statistics presented arenational and considerable within-country variationcan exist.)Modifiers: In addition to the dominant factors,several practical modifiers and factors determinethe appropriate form and level of involvement(Table 6). Some of the factors can be determinedas discrete numbers, whereas some areassessments based on experience. One majorchange in determining IRRI’s involvement is to3

Table 3. Summary of IRRI involvement in various rice-producing countries.Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in countrycollaboration MOU/MOAstartedBangladesh 1966 1985 Bangladesh-IRRI 1967-73 Ford Foundation L.P.V. Johnson, plant breederRice Project R. Walker, rice specialistResearch Station 1974-75 Ford Foundation D. CatlingDevelopmentRice Research 1976-80 (Phase I) Ford Foundation, F. Shepardand Training Project AIDAB, CIDA, USAID M. McIntosh (1985-87)1981-87 (Phase II) (Phase I & II)1988-93 (Phase III) USAID and CIDA J. McIntosh, research(Phase II & III) systems specialistCollaborative Research 1994-97 ADB, Core S. Bhuiyan (based in Los Baños)ARMP 1998-to date WB S. Bhuiyan, IRRI representativePoverty Elimination 1999-to date DFID, Govt. of Noel Magor, project managerthrough Rice Research BangladeshAssistance (PETRRA)Bhutan 1984 1990 Rice-Based Farming 1984-95 IDRC G.L. Denning (project coordinator basedSystems Project at Los Baños) 1994-June 1997Wetland Production 1995-June 2000 IDRC, SDC J.A. Lapitan (project coordinator basedSystems Project at Los Baños, July 1997-June 2000)EPINARM July 2000-to date IDRC, SDCCambodia 1980 1986 CIAP—Cambodia-IRRI- 1987-2002 AusAid H. Nesbitt, agronomist, team leaderAustralia Project R. Lando, technology transferR. Chaudhary, plant breederR. Joshi, entomologistP. White, soil scientistE. Javier, plant breederJ. Rickman, ag engineerG. Jahn, entomologistP. Cox, ag economistChina 1960/1982 1998 IRRI-China Office 1998-to date Core Dr. S.X. Tang, liaison scientistEgypt Early 1970s 1980 Egypt-IRRI Rice 1988-91 (Phase I) USAID E. SprattResearch Project 1991-94 (Phase II) USAID A.P.K. ReddyR. TinsleyD. Hille Ris LambersA.N. RaoIndia 1967 1974 All India Cooperative 1967-72 USAID/Rockefeller W. Freeman, rice breeder andRice Improvement Foundation joint coordinatorProject (AICRIP) S.V.S. Shastry, geneticist and coordinatorH. teu Have, agronomistH. Kaufman, plant pathologistJ. Lowe, entomologistCollaborative projects 1974-to date Core and Govt. B.P. Ghildyal, liaison scientist 1984-95of India R.K. Singh, liaison scientist 1995-to date4

Table 3 (continued).Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in countrycollaboration MOU/MOAstartedIndonesia 1972 1978 National Rice 1977-84 USAID J.R. Cowan, liaison scientist 1977-83Research Program B.R. Jackson, plant breederR. Morris, cropping systems agronomistW. Tappan, liaison scientist 1984-88Collaborative Projects 1984-to date C. Mamaril, agronomist and liaisonscientist, 1989-95M. Syam, liaison scientist 1995-to dateIran Early 1960s 1983 Iran-IRRI Rice 1995-to date Govt. of Iran G.S. Khush (project coordinator based inResearch and Los Baños)Training ProjectJapan 1962 1979 IRRI-Japan office that 1962-73 Govt. of Japan Jukyu Cho, in charge of IRRItranslates Japanese Tokyo officeRice LiteratureJapan-IRRI Shuttle 1990-to date Govt. of Japan Masami Himeda, liaison scientistResearch Tadashi Morinaka, liaison scientistKazuko Morooka, librarianHiroyuki Hibino, liaison scientistKorea (North) 1988 1989 DPRK-IRRI Rice 1997-99 Rockefeller Foundation J.A. Lapitan (project coordinator based inResearch and Los Baños)Training ProjectKorea (South) 1964 1986 Rapid Seed 1968- RDA liaison scientists based at IRRI: C.S. ParkMultiplication Program 1979-80; G.S. Chung 1980-83; S.C. Lee 1983-84; C.I. Cho 1984-85; C.H. Kim 1986-89; J.K.GUVA Project 1978- Park 1989-90; M.S. Lim 1991-92; N.K. Park1993-94; J. Yang 1994-96; D. Chung 1996-98; M.H. Lee 1998-to dateLao PDR 1968 1987 IRRI-Lao Research SDC& Training ProjectPhase I 1990-93 J. Schiller, team leaderS. Puspavesa, plant breederPhase II 1993-96 J. Schiller, team leaderT. Kupchanakul, agronomistW. Roder, agronomist (upland)Phase III 1996-June 2000 J. Schiller, team leaderB. Linquist, agronomistK. Farhney, agronomistPhase IV July 2000-June 2003 J. Schiller, team leaderB. Linquist, agronomist5

Table 3 (continued).Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in countrycollaboration MOU/MOAstartedMadagascar 1982 1982; 1996 Madagascar-IRRI 1984-90 USAID J. Hooper, team leaderRice Research Project B. Shahi, plant breeder(3 phases) 1991-97 USAID V. Balasubramanian, team leaderT. Masajo, plant breederM. Gaudreau, cropping systems agronomistS. Almy, SocioeconomistMadagascar-IRRI 1998-January 2001 USAID M. Gaudreau, team leader and agroecologistEnvironment andAgriculture ResearchProjectMyanmar 1965 1977 IRRI-Burma 1979-89 CIDA P. Escuro, rice breederCooperative ProjectMyanmar-IRRI Farming 1989-97 IDRC R. Palis, IRRI representative and agronomist,Systems Project 1989-94CBNRM (Community- 1997-2000 IDRC (to 1998) A. Garcia, IRRI representative and agronomist,Based Natural 1994-2000Resource ManagementProject)Nepal Early 1970s 1985 None None None NonePakistan 1966 1997 Pakistan-IRRI 1967-72 Ford Foundation K. Mueller, rice specialistAccelerated Rice G. McLean, rice specialistProduction ProjectPakistan-IRRI Rice 1997-98 World Bank NoneResearch and TrainingProjectPeru None None None None None NonePhilippines 1960 1960 Various 1960-to date Various R. Feueher, liaison scientist, 1973-82D. Wood, liaison scientist, 1983-866

Table 3 (continued).Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in countrycollaboration MOU/MOAstartedSri Lanka 1960 1967 DOASL-IRRI 1967-69 (Phase I) Ford Foundation J. Moomaw, rice specialistCooperative Project 1969-71 (Phase II) W. Golden, rice specialist1976-82 USAID J. Wimberly, rice processing engineerR.C. Khatter, associate engineerJ. Wimberly, IRRI representativeM. Davis, crop production specialist/teamleaderR. Freed, associate plant breederR. Tinsley, associate agronomistDOASL-IRRI Rice 1989-95 SAREC NoneResearch and TrainingProjectThailand 1960 1991 Deepwater Research 1974 to date IRRI, MOAC (Govt. B.R. Jackson, plant breeder and liaisonand Training Project of Thailand) scientist, 1966-82D. Hille Ris Lambers, plant breeder 1975-81Small Farm Machinery 1976-85 USAID D. Puckridge, agronomist and liaison scientist,Project 1981-96D. Senadhira, plant breeder and liaisonscientist, 1996-June 1998J.A. Lapitan, interim liaison scientist,July-Dec. 1998S. Sarkarung, plant breeder, 1998-to dateB. Somrith, liaison scientist, 1999-to dateVietnam 1964 1984 Strengthening CLRRI’s 1992-95 UNDP A. Mandac (project coordinator based in Losresearch and training BañoscapacityResearch and non- 1988-95 AusAid Nonedegree training D. Puckridge, part-time liaison scientist,1996-97G.L. Denning, de facto liaison scientist (fromLos Baños) 1997-98M.A. Bell, de facto liaison scientist (from LosBaños) to date7

Table 4. Factors used in previous MTP for determining involvement and IRRIpriorities.MTP criteria Indicator IPMO criteria forgrouping countriesFuture rice demand Per capita consumption Rice areaAlleviating poverty and Calorie deprivation Level of NARSfood insecuritySustainability Rice area under unfavorable History of collaborationecosystems (unsustainability) and distanceArea under rice-riceAlternative suppliers Agricultural researchof research expenditureModifiersGender equityLikelihood of spilloverSustaining high yields andNARS contribution toshifting the yield frontier IRRI’s global agendaNeed for criticalminimum effortTable 5. Suggested investment percentages developed for IRRI’s 2000 MTP based on criteria listed in Table 4.(Numbers represent standardized numbers from a total of 1,000.)AEZ1 AEZ2 AEZ3 AEZ5 AEZ6 AEZ7 AEZ8Country Warm and Warm Warm Warm arid Warm subhumid Warm/cool Coolsemiarid subhumid humid and semiarid subtropics humid subtropics Total Percenttropics tropics tropics tropics with with summer subtropics withsummer rainfall rainfall summer rainfallBangladesh 143 143 14Cambodia 8 8 1China 21 60 82 3 166 17India 108 200 1 37 4 350 35Indonesia 63 63 6Japan 0 0 0Korea (N) 3 3 0Korea (S) 2 2 0Lao PDR 4 4 0Madagascar 2 2 2 6 1Malaysia 4 4 0Myanmar 23 23 2Nepal 23 23 2Pakistan 13 13 1Philippines 14 14 1Sri Lanka 4 4 0Thailand 11 11 1Vietnam 28 28 3Rest of Asia 6 6 1Total 108 234 268 35 125 82 13Percent 11 23 27 4 12 8 1Africa 105 11Latin America 34 38

Notes from Table 5:Definitions and countries within Asia represented by agroecological zones (AEZ).Zone Definition Countries represented in AEZAEZ1 Warm and semiarid tropics IndiaAEZ2 Warm subhumid tropics India, Myanmar, ThailandAEZ3 Warm humid tropics Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR,Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, VietnamAEZ5 Warm arid and semiarid China, India, Pakistantropics with summer rainfallAEZ6 Warm subhumid subtropics India, China, North Korea, South Korea, Nepal,with summer rainfall JapanAEZ7 Warm/cool humid subtropics ChinaAEZ8 Cool subtropics with summer rainfall India, China, rest of AsiaTable 6. Criteria to determine the type of partnership collaboration with NARES and examples of potentialindicators for each.Dominant factors• Poverty• Purchasing power parity, percent poverty, child mortality, calorie deficit, UNDP human development index• Income/rice reliance—risk of food insecurity (index of M. Hossain, 1996)• Significance of rice• Area devoted to rice as % of total arable land; total production; rice consumption (total or calorie); percent householddependent on rice; percent labor force in rice; contribution of rice to GDP; percent and value of total rice import;importation per capita; percent and value of total rice export; production per capita; agriculture as a % of GDP; peopleper arable ha; extent of self-sufficiency—what if a disaster?Practical modifiers of involvement• Level of economic development• World Bank rating of level of economic development• NARES demand and strength (human resources and infrastructure for research and delivery)• Extent of demands received• Strength of research system• Arable ha per researcher• Presence of developed academic facilities (university, etc.)• Availability of developed or advanced research facilities and laboratories• Availability of advanced farm and laboratory equipment• Presence of trained human resources (PhD, MSc, BS)• Strength of delivery system—rate of yield increase (this is really an integration of a range of factors involving policy,research outputs, and delivery capacity)• Investment in agricultural research• Total agricultural research budget vis-à-vis GNP• Protection of the environment• Importance of national and regional food security• Population—significance of country and self-sufficiency• History of collaboration with IRRI• Collaborative opportunities• Potential for impact and spillover benefits (socio-political setting)• IRRI comparative advantage and supply capacity• Fund availability (including matching donor and host-country interest)• Potential for external bilateral funding support; capacity to provide local funding support (from government sources)• Distance (cost and communication efficiencies) implications for efficiency of input9

Table 7a. Country groupings based on significance of rice and extent ofpoverty (as estimated by child mortality).High Korea (S) Indonesia BangladeshMalaysia Philippines CambodiaSri Lanka Lao PDRThailand MyanmarVietnam NepalSignificance of rice(as percent ofarable land area)Medium Japan Bhutan ChinaIndiaMadagascarKorea (N)Low USA Brazil PakistanAustralia PeruFrance IranEgyptL o w Medium HighPoverty• Child mortality per 1,000 births as an index of poverty: Low = 60.Table 7b. Country groupings based on significance of rice and humandevelopment index.Significance of rice(as percent ofarable land area)High Korea (S) Malaysia Lao PDRThailand NepalPhilippines BangladeshSri LankaIndonesiaVietnamMyanmarCambodiaMedium Japan China BhutanIndiaMadagascarKorea (N)Low USA Brazil PakistanAustralia PeruFrance IranEgyptPakistanHigh Medium L o wPoverty• UNDP human development index as an index for poverty: Low = >0.8, Medium = 0.5–0.8, High =

Table 8. Summary table of countries based on different indicators.Focus (see explanations below) Modifiers(such as socio-politicalCountry Poverty Significance Agriculture Institutional Food Sustainability f Income/ Potential system, NARESalleviation a of rice b as of % capacity security e rice for demand)of GDP c needs d reliance g impact?1 2 1 2Bangladesh H H H M M M H M H M-HBhutan M M H H H H MCambodia H H H H H H L L M HChina M M M M L L L M H HIndia H M M M M M L L H M-HIndonesia M H H M M L L M H M-HKorea (N) H M L H M H H M L System challengesLao PDR H H H H H M M L M M-HMyanmar H H H H H M L L M L System challengesNepal H H M H L H L L H MPakistan H L L M L M L L H L-M System challengesPhilippines M H M M L M H M H M-HSri Lanka L-M H M M M M L H H MThailand M H M L M H L L M M-HVietnam M H H M L L L M H HLatin America andCaribbeanIran M L L M L L H L MAfrica MMadagascar H M M H H H L L MHigh income,self-reliantKorea (S) L H M L L L L H L L System advanced, yields highJapan L M L L L M L H L L System advanced, yields highMalaysia L H M L L H H H L L-MDefinitions for Table 8.a Child mortality per 1,000 births as an index of poverty: L = 60.b Significance of rice.• 1 = rice as a percent of arable land: L = 50%• 2 = consumption in kg per capita: L = 200c Agriculture as a percent of GDP: L = 30%d Institutional capacity needs: 1 = ha per researcher as an index: L = 20,000; 2 = delivery capacity: based on rate of yield gain 1961-98 (kg ha–1y –1 ): L = 54 (54 = world average).e Food security—rice importation (kg) per capita as an index: L = 20.fSustainability—people per arable ha as an index: L = 20.g Income/rice reliance (from Hossain 1996). L = high income, self-reliant, M = excess rice production capacity, H = risk of food insecurity.11

change the definition of IRRI’s partners fromNARS to NARES (to include governmentextension, NGOs, and the private sector) torecognize the importance of both research anddelivery capacities in enhancing the livelihoods ofpeople.Social, resource, and economiccharacteristicsPopulation, economics, and rice statistics helptarget potential countries for collaboration. Forexample, although the People’s Republic ofChina has the largest total population (Fig. 1),Bangladesh has the highest population density(Fig. 2). In contrast, Egypt places the highestpressure on its natural resources in terms ofpopulation per arable ha (Fig. 3). Highlighting theimportance of water in rice production, Lao PDRhas the greatest internal per capita renewableresources (Fig. 4), while the United States hasthe highest per capita use (Fig. 5). For rurallabor, Nepal has the highest rural population (%)(Fig. 6), whereas Bhutan has the highest numberof agricultural workers per arable ha (Fig. 7).Cambodia has the lowest average income asestimated by purchasing power parity (Fig. 8),whereas Myanmar relies the most on agriculturein terms of its contribution to gross domesticproduct (Fig. 9). (Estimates of poverty acrosscountries are very incomplete and so are notpresented.)Significance of riceIn terms of the national significance of rice,Vietnam has the highest use, planting more than100% of its arable land to rice because ofmultiple cropping, whereas Myanmar has thehighest per capita consumption (Fig. 10). However,as a percent of the world’s rice area, Indiaand China dominate, combining for almost half ofthe world’s rice area (Fig. 11) with Chinadominating total production (Fig. 12).When we look at rice yields, Australia hasthe highest national average (Fig. 13); however,national yields strongly depend on the extent ofirrigated rice (Fig. 14). When we look at historicyield trends (Fig. 15), China has had the highestrate of yield gain (regression analysis from 1961to 1998, Fig. 16). Figure 16 represents anintegration of factors contributing to yield gains,including research and delivery capacities, policyenvironments, and rice ecosystem potential. Interms of production versus national consumption,the relationship is essentially linear (Fig. 17),highlighting the importance of national andregional food security, with exporting countriessuch as Vietnam and Thailand providing animportant buffer for regional food supplies. Theleading export-earning countries in 1998 wereThailand, India, Vietnam, USA, China, andPakistan.Finally, plotting the significance of riceagainst an estimate of economic development(Fig. 18) helps group countries in terms of thedominant factors that influence involvement.Potential involvement across rice-growingcountries can be based on several criteria.The dominant factors remain the significanceof rice and the extent of poverty.Table 8 shows how the countries rate interms of several of the criteria (including groupingsbased on the definition of Hossain (1996)).Modes of collaborationIRRI’s roles can be broadly defined as those of• Provider (e.g., science, technology, expertise,information, germplasm, prototypes, andtraining),• Facilitator (e.g., a catalyst for action or forbringing groups together), and/or• Collaborator.Collaboration can take on various forms,such as• Upstream research (e.g., genomics, biotechnology),• Strategic research (e.g., weed ecologystudies), or• Applied research including technologydevelopment, evaluation, adaptation, anddelivery (e.g., field-level technology development).12

1,400Population (millions)1,2001,0008006004002000ChinaIndiaUSAIndonesiaBrazilPakistanJapanBangladeshVietnamPhilippinesIranEgyptThailandKorea (S)MyanmarColombiaCountryFig. 1. Total population (millions) of various rice-growing countries.TanzaniaKenyaPeruKorea (N)NepalMalaysiaUgandaSri LankaAustraliaMozambiqueMadagascarCambodiaLao PDRBhutan10Population density (people ha –1 )9876543210BangladeshKorea (S)JapanIndiaSri LankaPhilippinesVietnamKorea (N)PakistanNepalChinaThailandIndonesiaUgandaMalaysiaMyanmarCountryEgyptCambodiaKenyaIranColombiaTanzaniaUSAMadagascarLao PDRMozambiquePeruBrazilBhutanAustraliaFig. 2. Population density (total population per total land area, in ha) of various rice-growing countries.13

35Persons arable ha –1302520151050EgyptJapanKorea (S)MalaysiaSri LankaVietnamKorea (N)ChinaPhilippinesBangladeshTanzaniaIndonesiaNepalColombiaBhutanLao PDRCountryFig. 3. Productivity demand (persons arable ha –1 ) for various rice-growing countries.KenyaPeruMadagascarPakistanIndiaMozambiqueCambodiaMyanmarUgandaIranBrazilThailandUSAAustralia60,000Cubic meters50,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000Lao PDRBhutan14BrazilColombiaMyanmarMalaysiaMadagascarAustraliaIndonesiaBangladeshUSACambodiaNepalMozambiqueVietnamPhilippinesCountryFig. 4. Annual per capita internal renewable water resources (1998, cubic meters).JapanKorea (N)TanzaniaSri LankaChinaIndiaThailandUgandaIranPakistanPeruKorea (S)KenyaEgypt

2,000Cubic meters1,8001,6001,4001,2001,0008006004002000USAMadagascarPakistanIranAustraliaEgyptMalaysiaJapanKorea (N)PhilippinesKorea (S)IndiaThailandSri LankaChinaVietnamCountryFig. 5. Annual per capita withdrawal (cubic meters).PeruLao PDRBrazilBangladeshColombiaNepalMyanmarIndonesiaKenyaCambodiaMozambiqueTanzaniaUgandaBhutan100Rural population (%)9080706050403020100NepalUgandaBhutanBangladeshThailandCambodiaLao PDRSri LankaVietnamTanzaniaMyanmarIndiaMadagascarKenyaChinaPakistanCountryFig. 6. Rural population (as % of total population) for various rice-growing countries.IndonesiaMozambiqueEgyptMalaysiaPhilippinesIranKorea (N)PeruColombiaUSAJapanBrazilKorea (S)Australia15

10Rural labor arable ha –18642035,000BhutanChinaUS$TanzaniaVietnamNepalEgyptSri LankaBangladeshKenyaLao PDRIndonesiaMozambiqueMadagascarKorea (N)PhilippinesMalaysiaCountryMyanmarCambodiaUgandaIndiaKorea (S)PakistanThailandColombiaJapanPeruIranBrazilUSAAustraliaFig. 7. Rural labor abundance (rural workers arable ha –1 ) for various rice-growing countries.30,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,0000CambodiaMadagascar16TanzaniaMozambiqueBhutanKorea (N)UgandaNepalMyanmarLao PDRBangladeshKenyaIndiaVietnamPakistanSri LankaCountryFig. 8. Purchasing power parity for various rice-growing countries.IndonesiaEgyptPhilippinesChinaPeruIranThailandBrazilColombiaMalaysiaKorea (S)AustraliaJapanUSA

30Percentage of world rice area2520151050600IndiaChinaProduction (million t)IndonesiaBangladeshThailandVietnamMyanmarBrazilPhilippinesPakistanCambodiaJapanNepalMadagascarUSAKorea (S)CountryFig. 11. Percentage of world rice area for various rice-growing countries.Sri LankaKorea (N)MalaysiaIranLao PDRTanzaniaEgyptColombiaMozambiquePeruAustraliaUgandaBhutanKenya5004003002001000WorldAsia18ChinaIndiaIndonesiaVietnamBangladeshThailandMyanmarJapanPhilippinesUSABrazilPakistanKorea (S)Country or regionFig. 12. Total rice production (1998).EgyptNepalCambodiaIranSri LankaMadagascarKorea (N)MalaysiaColombiaLao PDRPeruAustraliaTanzaniaMozambiqueUgandaKenyaBhutan

Yield (t ha –1 )121086420AustraliaEgyptKorea (S)USAJapanChinaPeruIranColombiaIndonesiaVietnamAsiaWorldKorea (N)Sri LankaMyanmarMalaysiaIndiaCountry or regionFig. 13. National average rice yields (1998, t ha –1 ) for various rice-growing countries.PakistanKenyaBangladeshLao PDRPhilippinesBrazilNepalThailandMadagascarCambodiaBhutanTanzaniaUgandaMozambiqueAverage national yield (t ha–1), 19981210Australiag y ( ) ( )8642KenyaBrazilLao PDRThailandMadagascarTanzaniaUganda CambodiaMozambiqueBangaldesh`VietnamIndiaKorea (S)PeruIndonesiaColombiaWorld Asia Korea (N)MyanmarSri LankaMalaysiaNepal PhilippinesBhutanChinaEgyptUSAJapanIranPakistan00 20 40 60 80 100 120Percent rice area irrigatedFig. 14. Average national yields (t ha –1 ) in 1998 versus percent rice area irrigated.19

Yield (t ha –1 )765432101960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000YearWorldAsiaBangladeshBhutanCambodiaChinaIndiaIndonesiaIranKorea (N)Korea (S)Lao PDRMalaysiaMyanmarNepalPakistanPhilippinesSri LankaThailandVietnamFig. 15. Rice yields versus time for selected rice-growing countries.Rate of yield gain (kg ha –1 y –1 )2000806040200–-20–-40ChinaAustraliaEgyptIndonesiaColombiaKorea (S)USAAsiaVietnamWorldIranLao PDRMyanmarPeruPhilippinesSri LankaIndiaCountry or regionFig. 16. Average rate of yield gain (kg ha –1 y –1 ) from 1968 to 1998.PakistanBangladeshMalaysiaBrazilJapanTanzaniaNepalThailandCambodiaUgandaMadagascarKenyaBhutanMozambiqueKorea (N)Korea (N)20

Consumption (kg capita –1 y –1 )350Myanmar300Lao PDR250BangladeshCambodia VietnamIndonesia2001:1 lineKorea (S)150PhilippinesThailandChinaMalaysiaMadagascarIndiaNepal100JapanKorea (N)Sri LankaBrazilEgypt50 Iran PeruColombiaPakistanUganda TanzaniaKenyaUSA Australia0Mozambique0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Production (kg capita –1 y –1 )Fig. 17. Production versus consumption for various rice-growing countries.140Significance of rice (rice as % of arable area)120100VietnamBangladeshSri LankaLao PDR80CambodiaMyanmar/MalaysiaNepal Philippines60Korea (S)IndonesiaThailandMadagascar40 Korea (N)JapanBhutanChinaIndiaEgypt20 TanzaniaColombiaPakistan BrazilMozambique Peru IranAustraliaUSA0Uganda/Kenya0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000Purchasing power parity (US$)Fig. 18. Significance of rice (as percent of arable land) versus purchasing power parity for various rice-growing countries.21

Activities can involve• Exchanges of• Germplasm• Prototypes• Information/knowledge• Delivery enhancement—including technologydelivery (research use) and decisionsupport systems and tools (DSS and DST)• Policy• Capacity (and infrastructure) building• Visits or consultanciesThe products of collaboration thus includemethodologies, policy, technology, DSS, DST,information, germplasm, prototypes, awareness,image, priority setting, needs assessment,opportunity analysis, institutional strengthening,and impact assessment.Although these forms of collaboration arenot discrete, they give an idea of the range ofactivities that can be undertaken.When countries are grouped based onestimates of NARES research and deliverycapacity (e.g., Table 9), we can combine thiswith information from the figures to identify themost probable forms of collaboration (e.g., Table10). (Note: In such an exercise, national averagesare used. It is important to note, however,that within-country variation can be great, suchas eastern India versus northern India, and NorthVietnam versus South Vietnam.)Appropriate research involvement for IRRI in acountry depends on the needs and level ofdevelopment of the country and this can beupstream, strategic, or applied and can takethe form of provider, facilitator, or collaborator.Criteria for IRRI office in countryOnce collaboration is established, physicalpresence may become desirable. The level ofeconomic development of the country will largelydetermine this decision:a. For high- and upper-middle-income countries,an office would be established in thecountry if provided by the host country tofacilitate interactions and knowledge flow.This arrangement is at times an indirectopportunity for the host country to contributeto international development by enhancingknowledge and technology flow through theinternational agricultural research center(IARC), which acts as an information ortechnology hub.b. For countries with lower levels of economicdevelopment, the establishment of an officewill depend on the extent and form of IRRIactivities in the country, host-country demand,and availability of funds.Table 9. Research and delivery capacities as determined by the number ofarable ha per researcher and the rates of yield increases (1961-98).National researchcapacity (based onha per researcher)High Malaysia Japan AustraliaPakistan USAPhilippines ChinaIranKorea (S)VietnamMedium Korea (N) Bangladesh IndonesiaNepalIndiaThailand Sri LankaLow Bhutan Lao PDRCambodia MyanmarL o w Medium HighNational delivery capacity(based on rates of yield increase)Note: national research capacity based on ha per researcher as an index: High = 20,000; national delivery capacity (based on the rate of yield increase,1961-98): Low = 50 kg ha –1 y –1 .22

Table 10. Country groupings and likely forms of interaction.Economy a Capacity Countries OpportunitiesI. Countries with advanced production systems and well-developed economies, rice may or may not be significant, self-sufficiency not a major economicissue (but may be a major cultural issue)High Research and Australia, France, Japan, USA • IRRI’s role is primarily that of facilitator and collaboratordelivery very high • Strategic and upstream research collaboration• IRRI may act on behalf of the country as a facilitator. In these cases,Upper middle Research and Brazil, Malaysia, Korea (S) countries use IRRI’s networks and linkages to conduct activities indelivery very high other (less developed) countries• Learning curve experiences• These countries are providers in their own right, being sources oftechnology, knowledge, and fundsII. Countries with low- to lower-middle-income economies, research and delivery capacities generally high, poverty—significant levels, rice—self-sufficient(or almost), rice highly significant, population pressures medium to high, food security a major issueLower middle Research generally high, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand • Mixed research opportunities. IRRI’s role is a mix of facilitator,delivery variable collaborator, and provider (the latter being especially in relation toadvanced training needs)Low Research generally high, China, Indonesia, Vietnam • Major emphasis is on developing strategic and applied researchdelivery generally high capacities with special focus on sustainability research to ensurefood security in adjusting to shifts in land, labor, and water shortages• Major mode of strengthening is research collaboration throughresearch consortia and bilateral NARES-IRRI programs• Capacity building emphasis is more on strategic and applied research• Opportunities for research into areas with spillover to other countriesmay justify involvement, where an in-country analysis per se may not• Variable emphasis on activities related to evaluation, adaptation, anddelivery of research products as they can at times be adequately metby the NARES’ own capacity• Research consortium memberIII. Countries with low-income economies, research capacity reasonable, delivery capacity low to moderate, poverty—significant levels, rice—self-sufficient(or almost), rice highly significant, population pressures medium to high, food security a major issueLow Research moderate to Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan • IRRI’s role is a mix of facilitator, collaborator, and providerhigh, delivery low • Requires a balance of activities to support strategic and appliedto moderate research and the evaluation, adaptation, and delivery of researchproducts• Sustainability research adjusting to shifts in land, labor, and watershortages• Capacity building23

Table 10 (continued).Economy a Capacity Countries OpportunitiesIV. Countries with low-income economies, research and delivery capacities need major strengthening, poverty—significant levels, rice—self-sufficient (oralmost), rice highly significant, population pressures medium to high, food security a major issueLow Research relatively low Bhutan, Cambodia, Lao PDR, • IRRI’s dominant role here is that of provider—often with staff basedMyanmar, Korea (N), Madagascar in the country. As NARES’ capacities grow, the roles in facilitationand collaboration develop• Need significant capacity building and applied research collaboration• Greater emphasis is placed on evaluation, adaptation, and delivery ofresearch products through injection of large bilateral donor supportfacilitated through IRRI• As they improve their capacities, they become members of researchconsortiaV. Countries with low to lower-middle-income economies, small rice-producing countries requesting assistanceLower-middle Research moderately Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Iran, • IRRI’s dominant role here is typically that of (long-distance) provider,high, delivery variable Egypt, Mexico, Peru with minimal role in facilitation and collaboration.• Some strategic learning curve opportunitiesLow Research moderately Nicaragua • For stronger NARES, IRRI Los Baños provides limited supporthigh, delivery variable through advanced degree programs and focused upstream training• For relatively weak NARES, IRRI Los Baños provides limited supportLow Research low, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, to NARES for degree programs and focused trainingdelivery low Tanzania, Uganda • Germplasm and information exchange• Sponsored consultancies• Being generally distant from IRRI Los Baños, a low-cost approach isused for meeting their needs, mostly by participating in technologyevaluation networks or regional programs or networks• Minimal personnel support from IRRI Los Bañosa World Bank economic classification: low-income economies = US$9,361.24

We are increasingly seeing that, as nationaleconomies develop, countries are contributing tothe upkeep of an IRRI presence through directcontributions to IRRI or IRRI-related activities.IRRI’s physical presence in a countrydepends on the extent and form of IRRIactivities in the country, host-country demand,and availability of funds.Criteria for differentiating involvementWhen all the dominant and modifying factors arecombined, five generic forms of interactionemerge based on the level of economic development,strength of the national research anddelivery system, extent of poverty, level ofproduction systems, and importance of selfsufficiencyand food security (Table 10).IRRI’s involvement in a country can fall intoone of five generic forms depending on thelevel of economic development, strength ofthe national research and delivery system,extent of poverty, and the significance of rice.Criteria for evaluating RD&D focusWhen considering the actual content of theresearch, delivery, and development activities,the following factors are considered:• Target group• Needs and problems• Opportunity• Probability of success• Probable impact if successful—significanceof problem• Spillover effects (flow to other regions andcountries)• Alternative suppliers of RD&D• Comparative advantage• Other factors, such as public/donor perceptions/values,socio-political settingAnother issue is to highlight the appropriaterole that IRRI needs to play in terms of deliveryand development. There is a continuing debateas to the role that international centers such asIRRI should play in terms of developmentactivities. IRRI is very clear on this.1. IRRI’s primary focus is research, but aresearch cycle should include successfulapplication of the science and feedback fromend-users, and should not finish before this.2. In collaboration with NARES partners, IRRIseeks to validate and evaluate technologywith the ultimate beneficiaries.3. IRRI does not move to fill developmentvoids, but rather seeks to work with developmentorganizations to test technologies anddevelop delivery methodologies that allow forthe effective communication of options to awider group of beneficiaries.Thus, the rationale for IRRI involvement indelivery at the field level is that• there is NARES commitment (to ensuresustainability of effort),• public goods such as knowledge or principlesthat can be applied elsewhere are generated,• NARES human resources for sustainabilityand impact are developed, and• efforts feed into the development efforts ofother partners.To highlight this approach, IRRI RD&Dembraces “research for development” that keepsthe institutional focus on research while recognizingthe need for the research to be used.IRRI’s role therefore includes facilitating,understanding, and documenting delivery.IRRI’s actual involvement in a country willdepend on a range of factors such as need,opportunity, potential for success and impact,spillover effects, and comparativeadvantage. The need for use of researchmeans that IRRI works with but doesnot replace development partners.Target and means of deliveryIn considering IRRI’s desire to increase impact,we need to consider what are the productsproduced, who are the target groups, and what25

are the means of delivery to these groups (Table11). Because of the range of products, impactwill take on different forms (Table 12).The research cycle can be defined to includeproblem identification, participatory research,delivery, and evaluation (including monitoring,feedback, and impact assessment). Researchrequires relevance—it must meet the needs ofthe target group and be not only beneficial butalso perceived to be beneficial. Thus, farmers’perceptions and incentives need to be integralparts of a research agenda. To avoid disciplinaryresearch in isolation and to ensure researchrelevance and efficiency, the “content-processlocalknowledge” framework provides a robustmodel:• Content refers to the researcher and knowledgeand understanding of the technology• Process refers to the delivery of the knowledge—packagingand presentation• Local knowledge refers to the inclusion inthe process of local input to ensure relevanceand feedback to ensure that needsare matched with opportunities that considerlocal circumstances, contacts, and suitabilityof technology fit.Table 11. Summary of IRRI products, target groups, and means of delivery.Products Means of delivery TargetsGermplasm Networks DonorsTechnology Scientist to scientist MediaKnowledge Consortia General public• Policy Training NARES• Decision support • Short course • Researchsystems or tools • On-the-job • ExtensionMethodologies • Degree • NGOs• Research techniques Postgraduate Private• Priority setting Media Advanced research institutes• Needs assessment Publications Farmers• Opportunity analysis Web Farmers’ groupsImpact assessmentPrototypesAwareness/imageInformationInstitutional strengtheningTable 12. Forms of impact from efforts of an internationalorganization.ResearchPolicyExtension systemFarmersIntroduce new paradigms in research approachAdopt new research and analytical methodsUse generic materials in breeding of new cultivarsChange policyEstablish new regulationsDevelop systems to facilitate adoptionUse products and knowledge in extensionAdopt new information delivery approachesPractice changeIncrease productivityReduce health risks26

The figure below highlights the need forinteraction, but also indicates that there should beopportunities for independent action.ProcessDeliveryContentKnowledgeRelevanceLocalknowledgeWhen applied, based on Table 13, this simplemodel clearly demonstrates to collaboratorswithin a system what their roles are and howthey can function together to increase theefficiency of their research and delivery system.It helps clearly identify which areas needcollaboration, which areas are lacking, and whichareas can be pursued independently. It recognizesthat people are the key to success and allhave a role to play in successful delivery. Byfocusing on the process, discussion concentrateson meeting needs. This methodology has beentested in various scenarios and repeatedlyprovides a simple and successful comprehensiblemodel. This simple format ensures that1. True opportunities are recognized,2. Real needs versus interests are pursued, and3. All steps in the delivery process are considered.Although the model provides the framework,other partnership factors need to be consideredin successful delivery. In studying variousprojects, several issues have emerged as criticalin selecting partners, including1. Project driver: Someone from one of theorganizations must assume a leadership rolein the project. This person (or persons)should coordinate project activities and holdultimate responsibility for having eachpartner perform his or her tasks or deliverproject inputs on time and at the level ofquality required.2. Work with “winners”: Winners tend to beself-motivated. These local partners providethe drive to keep the project going.3. Trust and respect: In the end, projectsdepend on people and their ability to worktogether. Thus, trust and respect are critical.It takes time and shared experiences to buildtrust and establish the confidence that eachpartner has the good of the project and eachother at heart.4. Develop project goals collectively, explicitly,and openly: Common vision and goalsare keys to success. Engage all the collaboratingorganizations in the development ofproject goals and guiding principles withproactive efforts to explain the project topotential critics. Project partners shoulddefine project milestones and set up asystem for monitoring project implementationand performance.5. Capacity building: Develop skills andconfidence to understand and promote thetechnology in appropriate ways.6. Technology: The technology must meet areal perceived need and must be simplifiedwith only the critical components presented.7. Money: Good programs and powerfulpartnerships will fail without the financialresources to carry out program activities.Money allows the implementation of goodwill.Table 13. Factors involved in ensuring research relevance.Problem Cause(s) Options Content Process Local knowledge Modifiers/specialists/role players/role players/role considerations27

8. No freebees: Participants must contributesome of their own resources in some form.9. Institutional stability and commitment:Groups must have financial, personnel, andinstitutional and organizational stability.Participating organizations must ensure “buyin”at the top, the middle, and the bottom.Individual self-interest or egos can overrideany institutional commitment to partnerships.10. Transaction costs: Considerable transactioncosts are involved in establishing and maintainingcollaborative working relationships.11. Private- and public-sector perspectives:Expect differences in the organizationalcultures of partners from different sectors.These differences can cause difficulties andthey need to be considered in the design ofthe project and the strategy for carrying itout. Working with the private sector typicallyintroduces a sense of urgency—one of theadvantages of such linkages.12. Change and dealing with fallout: Whenproposing and carrying out change, it iscommon that the status quo is upset andvested interests may feel threatened.Opposition to change derives from severalmotives, such as opposition to change per se,opposition to or misunderstanding of theproject objectives or approach, or differentagendas (e.g., political or individual attacks).Recognize, also, that multi-sector partnershipsinvolve organizations with their ownhistories and prejudices may already exist onthe part of some critics. In formulatingproject responses to criticism, it is importantto consider the underlying motivation for thecriticism. These considerations highlight theimportance of examining (1) how to bring asmany sectors/organizations on board and (2)how to avoid unfounded or unnecessarycriticism while responding to genuine concernsin developing partnerships.To achieve impact, IRRI has to facilitate thecommunication of viable options to and withthe target group. This necessitates goodproblem and opportunity analysis, clearidentification of the beneficiaries and theirneeds and perceptions, and understanding ofeffective presentation and delivery mechanisms.A three-part framework has beenestablished to facilitate this.BibliographyHossain M. 1996. Recent developments in theAsian rice economy: challenges for riceresearch. In: Evenson RE, Herdt RW,Hossain M, editors. Rice research prioritiesin Asia: progress and priorities. CAB Internationalin association with the InternationalRice Research Institute.IRRI. 1995. World rice statistics 1993-1994. LosBaños (Philippines): International RiceResearch Institute.World Resources. 1998. 1998-99 world resources:a guide to the global environment,environmental change and human health. Ajoint publication of The World ResourcesInstitute, The United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, The United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, and The World Bank.Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.UNDP (United Nations DevelopmentProgramme). Human development report1999. Oxford (UK): Oxford UniversityPress.Web database sitesWorld Bank database: http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.htmlFAO database: http://www.fao.org/The World Factbook (CIA): http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/28

Appendix 1. Groupings and modes of collaborationfrom previous medium-term plan.Group characteristicsMode and strategies of collaborationGroup 1• Usually large rice-growing countries (>2 million ha) • Major emphasis is on the development of strategic and• Well-developed national research institutions covering applied research capacitiesthe major rice-growing regions and ecosystems • Major mode of strengthening is research collaboration• Scientists trained to the Ph.D. level in each of the major through research consortia and bilateral NARS-IRRIdisciplines related to riceprograms• Relatively long history of collaboration (>10 years) • Training emphasis is more on strategic and applied researchwith IRRI in strategic research areas • Less emphasis on activities related to evaluation, adaptation,• One or more universities that have graduate programs and delivery of research products as they can be met byto Ph.D. levelNARS’ own capacityExamples: Bangladesh, India, ChinaGroup 2• Usually medium to large rice-growing countries(>500,000 ha)• Established national research institutions covering • Require a balance of activities to support strategic andthe major rice-growing regions and ecosystemsapplied research and the evaluation, adaptation, and delivery• Scientists trained to the M.S. level in most major of research productsdisciplines related to rice• A history of collaboration with IRRI (>5 years)in applied research areas• One or more universities that have graduateprograms to the M.S. levelExample: VietnamGroup 3• Usually small to medium rice-growing countries(50,000 to 2 million ha)• National research institutions newly established • Greater emphasis is placed on evaluation, adaptation, andor not yet established for the major rice-growingdelivery of research products through injection of largeregions and ecosystemsbilateral donor support, which has been facilitated through• Few scientists trained to the M.S. level in the key IRRIdisciplines related to rice • As they improve their capacities, they become members of• Little or no history of research collaboration with IRRI research consortiaExample: CambodiaGroup 4• Small rice-growing countries (

Appendix 2. Ten features of a good countryassistancestrategy.(from World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/html/pic/cas/tenfeat.htm)1. Client focus. A good country-assistance strategy (CAS) is grounded in the country’s political, economic, and socialcontext. It starts with a discussion of country conditions and the government’s priorities and development strategy. Itincludes an evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of ongoing reform programs, their implications forprivate-sector development and sustainable growth and development, and their social impact. It is carried by strongcountry ownership and broad stakeholder consultation (pursued with prior general agreement of the government), butcandidly acknowledges differences between the Bank and the authorities.2. Strategic selectivity. A good CAS is the central vehicle for making strategic choices in country program design andBank resource allocation, with the objective of maximizing development impact. This involves (i) assessing the relativemagnitude and likelihood of the impact of alternative Bank group activities on the ground; (ii) taking into account theBank’s comparative advantage vis-à-vis others, track record, costs, and risks; and (iii) prioritizing activities across andwithin sectors and by instruments (product mix) accordingly.3. Poverty focus. A good CAS includes a high-quality diagnosis of the profile and causes of poverty. It links the proposedBank program clearly to the poverty assessment and explains how key lending and nonlending services contribute topoverty reduction.4. Macroeconomic and external framework. A good CAS is based on a strong analysis of macroeconomic performance,prospects, and risks. It discusses the external environment and implications for the country’s development agenda andvulnerability and the Bank program.5. Governance and institutions. A good CAS diagnoses governance/corruption, institutional effectiveness, andimplementation capacity issues and, where relevant, addresses them in the proposed Bank lending or nonlendingprogram.6. Self-evaluation and lessons from experience. A good CAS includes a frank discussion of the track record of Bankinvolvement, a thorough and candid portfolio analysis, and “lessons learned.” It fully integrates findings from theOperations Evaluation Department (OED), Quality Assurance Group (QAG), and self-evaluation studies.7. Comparative advantage and role of the Bank. A good CAS is based on strong coordination and collaboration withexternal partners (IMF, multilateral development banks, bilaterals, private sector, NGOs, etc.). It includes a Bank lendingand nonlending program and involves a division of labor with others in line with the comparative advantage of the Bankand its partners in supporting the client country.8. Collaboration within Bank group. A good CAS integrates an IBRD/IDA strategy into a consistent overall Bank groupstrategy, within which IBRD/IDA, International Finance Corporation (IFC), and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency(MIGA) operations complement each other in promoting private-sector development.9. Bank program scenarios, triggers, and monitoring indicators. A good CAS includes (i) well-differentiated scenarios forBank assistance (low, base, high case), with a strong link between performance and aid effectiveness and the level ofBank support; (ii) specific, monitorable triggers for switching between scenarios that focus on key reform challenges;and (iii) clear, monitorable indicators for evaluating the development effectiveness of the Bank program.10. Risks. A good CAS thoroughly treats risks to the country (economic-financial, both domestic and external, political,social, and environmental) and to the Bank (exposure/financial as well as reputational), proposes risk mitigationmeasures, and candidly recognizes the risk to the Bank.30