Foreword vAcknowledgments viExecutive summary viiWhy 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 29

previous medium-term planAppendix 2. Ten features of a good country-assistance 30

strategy

Contents

v

Foreword

The 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 deter-mine priorities 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. PADOLINA

Deputy Director General, PartnershipsIRRI

vi

The 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.

Acknowledgments

vii

Organizations 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 agricul-tural research and extension systems (NARES).The form of involvement ranges from major in-country projects 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 involve-ment with 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 indica-tors can 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 and

collaboration

3. NARES capacity in terms of research anddelivery

4. Opportunities for collaboration and impact(and spillover) in light of the socio-politicalsetting

5. Importance of national and regional foodsecurity

6. Country population7. Distance from Los Baños

IRRI factors:1. IRRI comparative advantage and supply

capacity2. Availability of funds

Data 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, biotech-

nology)• Strategic research (e.g., weed ecology

studies)• Applied research (e.g., technology develop-

ment, evaluation, adaptation, and delivery)Collaborative research activities can include• Exchanges of

• Germplasm• Prototypes• Information/knowledge

Executive summary

viii

• Delivery enhancement, including decisionsupport tools

• Policy advice• Capacity (and infrastructure) building

The products of collaboration are thusmethodologies, policy, technology, decisionsupport systems or tools, information, germplasm,prototypes, awareness, image, priority setting,needs assessment, opportunity analysis, institu-tional strengthening, and impact assessment.

For enhanced impact, IRRI promotes thestructure of research around a content-process-local knowledge framework. Such a frameworkbrings together the knowledge experts (content)with the communication experts (process) withthe assurance of relevance through the involve-ment of local experts (local knowledge).

Actual involvement in a country will dependlargely on problem analysis, consultation, andopportunity analysis, but can include• Physical presence in the country through an

internationally or nationally recruited staffposition. In general, in-country presence willa. Be in advanced-economy countries if

provided by the host country to facilitateinteractions and knowledge flow.

b. Depend on the extent and form of IRRIactivities in the country or region (anoffice may be based in one country toalso serve neighboring countries).

c. Depend on host-country demand.d. Depend on funding availability.

• Collaborative research—on a specific in-country project, scientist-to-scientist ex-changes, or through consortia activities.

• Scientist visits/consultations.The form of interaction will ultimately

depend on IRRI’s comparative advantage andability to meet demand. Thus, funding opportuni-ties will always be an issue in determining theform and extent of involvement.

1

Why an international center for rice?1

One 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 popula-tion growth 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, to

meet demand and reduce drudgery, we needsustainable and improved rice production sys-tems that 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 involvement

IRRI’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 Interna-tional Network for Genetic Evaluation of Rice(INGER) (Table 2). In human resource develop-ment, IRRI has around 200 participants intraining events each year. Throughout its history,IRRI has had almost 6,000 participants in short-term group training and around 3,000 in degree/nondegree training from 98 countries. Many ofthose trained now hold important positions intheir government programs. Information ex-change involves 130 countries with the bulk ofthis—around 80% of all publication distribution—being with 20 countries (Australia, Bangladesh,Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan,

Research for Development: IRRI’s In-Country Roles

M.A. Bell, J.A. Lapitan, and M. Hossain

1 This section comes in part from IRRI’s Web page.

IRRI is presently involved with germplasm and natural resource management research inmore than 20 countries, germplasm exchange with 52 countries, information distribution with

130 countries, and training involving more than 50 countries.

2

Table 2. Countries collaborating with INGER, 1995-2000.

Asia Africa Europe/West Asia Oceania-Pacific Americas

Bangladesh 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 LankaTaiwanThailandVietnam

Table 1. Summary of IRRI activities in major rice-producing countries as of 2000.

Substantial Liaison Country Network Consortia member*Country research office project member

activity IR RL UR FP

Bangladesh Y Y Y HR Y (y) YBhutan PBrazil YCambodia 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 YIran SPKorea (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 Y

Developed countriesAustralia YFrance YJapan IJS YKorea (S) YUSA Y

*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.

3

Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines,South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, UK,USA, and Vietnam).

History of involvement

Table 3 summarizes IRRI’s historical involve-ment including 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).

Criteria for involvement: history

History 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 medium-term plan (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 collabora-tion (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 poverty

alleviation,• Commitment to bring modern science to bear

on the attainment of the new vision,• Priority to South Asia and sub-Saharan

Africa, where most of the world’s poor live,• Regional approaches to research planning,

and• Close integration of CGIAR activities with

those of partners in the developing regions,including partners engaged in developmentwork.

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 incountries

Dominant 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 varia-tion can 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 deter-mined as discrete numbers, whereas some areassessments based on experience. One majorchange in determining IRRI’s involvement is to

IRRI has a rich history of major projects inmore than 20 countries.

Historically, alleviating poverty, expected ricedemand, food security, sustainability, and

alternative suppliers of research have beenthe key factors used to determine suggested

investment in countries. Gender equity,sustaining high yields, and shifting the yield

frontier were important modifiers.

4

Tabl

e 3.

Sum

mar

y of

IR

RI

invo

lvem

ent

in v

ario

us r

ice-

prod

ucin

g co

untr

ies.

Cou

ntry

Whe

nF

irst

Pro

ject

Per

iod

Prin

cipa

l don

orIR

RI

staf

f m

embe

rs p

oste

d in

cou

ntry

colla

bora

tion

MO

U/M

OA

star

ted

Ban

glad

esh

1966

1985

Ban

glad

esh-

IRR

I19

67-7

3F

ord

Fou

ndat

ion

L.P.

V. J

ohns

on,

plan

t br

eede

r R

ice

Pro

ject

R.

Wal

ker,

rice

spec

ialis

tR

esea

rch

Sta

tion

1974

-75

For

d F

ound

atio

nD

. Cat

ling

Dev

elop

men

tR

ice

Res

earc

h19

76-8

0 (P

hase

I)

For

d F

ound

atio

n,F.

She

pard

and

Tra

inin

g P

roje

ct A

IDA

B, C

IDA

, US

AID

M.

McI

ntos

h (1

985-

87)

1981

-87

(Pha

se II

) (

Pha

se I

& II

)19

88-9

3 (P

hase

III)

US

AID

and

CID

AJ.

McI

ntos

h, r

esea

rch

(P

hase

II &

III)

sy

stem

s sp

ecia

list

Col

labo

rativ

e R

esea

rch

1994

-97

AD

B, C

ore

S.

Bhu

iyan

(ba

sed

in L

os B

años

)A

RM

P19

98-t

o da

teW

BS

. Bhu

iyan

, IR

RI r

epre

sent

ativ

eP

over

ty E

limin

atio

n19

99-t

o da

teD

FID

, Gov

t. of

Noe

l Mag

or, p

roje

ct m

anag

er

thro

ugh

Ric

e R

esea

rch

B

angl

ades

h A

ssis

tanc

e (P

ET

RR

A)

Bhu

tan

1984

1990

Ric

e-B

ased

Far

min

g19

84-9

5ID

RC

G.L

. D

enni

ng (

proj

ect

coor

dina

tor

base

d

Sys

tem

s P

roje

ct

at L

os B

años

) 19

94-J

une

1997

Wet

land

Pro

duct

ion

1995

-Jun

e 20

00ID

RC

, SD

CJ.

A.

Lapi

tan

(pro

ject

coo

rdin

ator

bas

ed

Sys

tem

s P

roje

ct

at L

os B

años

, Ju

ly 1

997-

June

200

0)E

PIN

AR

MJu

ly 2

000-

to d

ate

IDR

C, S

DC

Cam

bodi

a19

8019

86C

IAP

—C

ambo

dia-

IRR

I-19

87-2

002

Au

sAid

H. N

esbi

tt, a

gron

omis

t, te

am le

ader

Aus

tral

ia P

roje

ctR

. La

ndo,

tech

nolo

gy t

rans

fer

R.

Cha

udha

ry,

plan

t br

eede

rR

. Jos

hi, e

ntom

olog

ist

P. W

hite

, so

il sc

ient

ist

E. J

avie

r, pl

ant b

reed

erJ.

Ric

kman

, ag

engi

neer

G. J

ahn,

ent

omol

ogis

tP.

Cox

, ag

econ

omis

t

Chi

na19

60/1

982

1998

IRR

I-C

hina

Offi

ce19

98-t

o da

teC

ore

Dr.

S.X

. Tan

g, li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist

Egy

ptE

arly

197

0s19

80E

gypt

-IRR

I Ric

e19

88-9

1 (P

hase

I)

US

AID

E. S

prat

t

Res

earc

h P

roje

ct19

91-9

4 (P

hase

II)

US

AID

A.P

.K.

Red

dyR

. Tin

sley

D. H

ille

Ris

Lam

bers

A.N

. Rao

Indi

a19

6719

74A

ll In

dia

Coo

pera

tive

196

7-72

US

AID

/Roc

kefe

ller

W.

Fre

eman

, ric

e br

eede

r an

d R

ice

Impr

ovem

ent

Fou

ndat

ion

jo

int

coor

dina

tor

Pro

ject

(AIC

RIP

)S

.V.S

. S

hast

ry,

gene

ticis

t an

d co

ordi

nato

rH

. teu

Hav

e, a

gron

omis

tH

. Kau

fman

, pla

nt p

atho

logi

stJ.

Low

e, e

ntom

olog

ist

Col

labo

rativ

e pr

ojec

ts19

74-t

o da

teC

ore

and

Gov

t.B

.P.

Ghi

ldya

l, lia

ison

sci

entis

t 19

84-9

5 o

f Ind

iaR

.K.

Sin

gh,

liais

on s

cien

tist

1995

-to

date

5

Tabl

e 3

(con

tinue

d).

Cou

ntry

Whe

nF

irst

Pro

ject

Per

iod

Prin

cipa

l don

orIR

RI

staf

f m

embe

rs p

oste

d in

cou

ntry

colla

bora

tion

MO

U/M

OA

star

ted

Indo

nesi

a19

7219

78N

atio

nal R

ice

1977

-84

US

AID

J.R

. C

owan

, lia

ison

sci

entis

t 19

77-8

3

Res

earc

h P

rogr

amB

.R.

Jack

son,

pla

nt b

reed

erR

. M

orris

, cr

oppi

ng s

yste

ms

agro

nom

ist

W. T

appa

n, li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist

1984

-88

Col

labo

rativ

e P

roje

cts

1984

-to

date

C. M

amar

il, a

gron

omis

t and

liai

son

sc

ient

ist,

1989

-95

M.

Sya

m,

liais

on s

cien

tist

1995

-to

date

Iran

Ear

ly 1

960s

1983

Iran-

IRR

I Ric

e19

95-t

o da

teG

ovt.

of I

ran

G.S

. K

hush

(pr

ojec

t co

ordi

nato

r ba

sed

in

Res

earc

h an

d

Los

Bañ

os)

Tra

inin

g P

roje

ct

Japa

n19

6219

79IR

RI-

Japa

n of

fice

that

1962

-73

Gov

t. of

Jap

anJu

kyu

Cho

, in

char

ge o

f IR

RI

tr

ansl

ates

Jap

anes

e

Toky

o of

fice

R

ice

Lite

ratu

reJa

pan-

IRR

I Shu

ttle

1990

-to

date

Gov

t. of

Jap

anM

asam

i Him

eda,

liai

son

scie

ntis

t

Res

earc

hTa

dash

i Mor

inak

a, li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist

Kaz

uko

Mor

ooka

, lib

raria

nH

iroyu

ki H

ibin

o, li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist

Kor

ea (

Nor

th)

1988

1989

DP

RK

-IRR

I Ric

e19

97-9

9R

ocke

felle

r F

ound

atio

nJ.

A.

Lapi

tan

(pro

ject

coo

rdin

ator

bas

ed i

n

Res

earc

h an

d

Los

Bañ

os)

Tra

inin

g P

roje

ct

Kor

ea (

Sou

th)

1964

1986

Rap

id S

eed

1968

-R

DA

liai

son

scie

ntis

ts b

ased

at I

RR

I: C

.S. P

ark

Mul

tiplic

atio

n P

rogr

am19

79-8

0; G

.S.

Chu

ng 1

980-

83;

S.C

. Le

e 19

83-

84; C

.I. C

ho 1

984-

85; C

.H. K

im 1

986-

89; J

.K.

GU

VA

Pro

ject

1978

-P

ark

1989

-90;

M.S

. Lim

199

1-92

; N.K

. Par

k19

93-9

4; J

. Yan

g 19

94-9

6; D

. C

hung

199

6-98

; M.H

. Lee

199

8-to

dat

e

Lao

PD

R19

6819

87IR

RI-

Lao

Res

earc

hS

DC

& T

rain

ing

Pro

ject

Pha

se I

1990

-93

J. S

chill

er, t

eam

lead

erS

. P

uspa

vesa

, pl

ant

bree

der

Pha

se II

1993

-96

J. S

chill

er, t

eam

lead

erT.

Kup

chan

akul

, agr

onom

ist

W. R

oder

, agr

onom

ist (

upla

nd)

Pha

se II

I19

96-J

une

2000

J. S

chill

er, t

eam

lead

erB

. Li

nqui

st,

agro

nom

ist

K.

Far

hney

, ag

rono

mis

tP

hase

IVJu

ly 2

000-

June

200

3J.

Sch

iller

, tea

m le

ader

B.

Linq

uist

, ag

rono

mis

t

6

Tabl

e 3

(con

tinue

d).

Cou

ntry

Whe

nF

irst

Pro

ject

Per

iod

Prin

cipa

l don

orIR

RI

staf

f m

embe

rs p

oste

d in

cou

ntry

colla

bora

tion

MO

U/M

OA

star

ted

Mad

agas

car

1982

1982

; 19

96M

adag

asca

r-IR

RI

1984

-90

US

AID

J. H

oope

r, te

am le

ader

R

ice

Res

earc

h P

roje

ctB

. S

hahi

, pl

ant

bree

der

(3

pha

ses)

1991

-97

US

AID

V. B

alas

ubra

man

ian,

tea

m le

ader

T. M

asaj

o, p

lant

bre

eder

M.

Gau

drea

u, c

ropp

ing

syst

ems

agro

nom

ist

S. A

lmy,

Soc

ioec

onom

ist

Mad

agas

car-

IRR

I19

98-J

anua

ry 2

001

US

AID

M.

Gau

drea

u, t

eam

lead

er a

nd a

groe

colo

gist

Env

ironm

ent a

nd

Agr

icul

ture

Res

earc

h P

roje

ct

Mya

nmar

1965

1977

IRR

I-Bur

ma

1979

-89

CID

AP.

Esc

uro,

ric

e br

eede

r

Coo

pera

tive

Pro

ject

Mya

nmar

-IRR

I Far

min

g19

89-9

7ID

RC

R. P

alis

, IR

RI r

epre

sent

ativ

e an

d ag

rono

mis

t,

Sys

tem

s P

roje

ct

1989

-94

CB

NR

M (C

omm

unity

-19

97-2

000

IDR

C (t

o 19

98)

A.

Gar

cia,

IR

RI

repr

esen

tativ

e an

d ag

rono

mis

t,

Bas

ed N

atur

al

1994

-200

0 R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent

P

roje

ct)

Nep

alE

arly

197

0s19

85N

one

Non

eN

one

Non

e

Pak

ista

n19

6619

97P

akis

tan-

IRR

I19

67-7

2F

ord

Fou

ndat

ion

K. M

uelle

r, ric

e sp

ecia

list

A

ccel

erat

ed R

ice

G.

McL

ean,

ric

e sp

ecia

list

Pro

duct

ion

Pro

ject

Pak

ista

n-IR

RI R

ice

1997

-98

Wor

ld B

ank

Non

e

Res

earc

h an

d T

rain

ing

Pro

ject

Per

uN

one

Non

eN

one

Non

eN

one

Non

e

Phi

lippi

nes

1960

1960

Va

rio

us

1960

-to

date

Va

rio

us

R.

Feu

eher

, lia

ison

sci

entis

t, 19

73-8

2D

. W

ood,

liai

son

scie

ntis

t, 19

83-8

6

7

Tabl

e 3

(con

tinue

d).

Cou

ntry

Whe

nF

irst

Pro

ject

Per

iod

Prin

cipa

l don

orIR

RI

staf

f m

embe

rs p

oste

d in

cou

ntry

colla

bora

tion

MO

U/M

OA

star

ted

Sri

Lank

a19

6019

67D

OA

SL-

IRR

I19

67-6

9 (P

hase

I)

For

d F

ound

atio

nJ.

Moo

maw

, ric

e sp

ecia

list

C

oope

rativ

e P

roje

ct19

69-7

1 (P

hase

II)

W.

Gol

den,

ric

e sp

ecia

list

1976

-82

US

AID

J. W

imbe

rly,

rice

proc

essi

ng e

ngin

eer

R.C

. K

hatte

r, as

soci

ate

engi

neer

J. W

imbe

rly, I

RR

I rep

rese

ntat

ive

M.

Dav

is,

crop

pro

duct

ion

spec

ialis

t/tea

m

lead

erR

. F

reed

, as

soci

ate

plan

t br

eede

rR

. T

insl

ey,

asso

ciat

e ag

rono

mis

tD

OA

SL-

IRR

I Ric

e19

89-9

5S

AR

EC

Non

e

Res

earc

h an

d T

rain

ing

Pro

ject

Tha

iland

1960

1991

Dee

pwat

er R

esea

rch

1974

to

date

IRR

I, M

OA

C (G

ovt.

B.R

. Ja

ckso

n, p

lant

bre

eder

and

liai

son

and

Tra

inin

g P

roje

ct

of T

haila

nd)

sc

ient

ist,

1966

-82

D. H

ille

Ris

Lam

bers

, pla

nt b

reed

er 1

975-

81S

mal

l Far

m M

achi

nery

1976

-85

US

AID

D. P

uckr

idge

, agr

onom

ist a

nd li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist,

Pro

ject

19

81-9

6D

. Sen

adhi

ra, p

lant

bre

eder

and

liai

son

sc

ient

ist,

1996

-Jun

e 19

98J.

A.

Lapi

tan,

inte

rim li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist,

Ju

ly-D

ec.

1998

S.

Sar

karu

ng,

plan

t br

eede

r, 19

98-t

o da

teB

. S

omrit

h, li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist,

1999

-to

date

Vie

tnam

1964

1984

Str

engt

heni

ng C

LRR

I’s19

92-9

5U

ND

PA

. M

anda

c (p

roje

ct c

oord

inat

or b

ased

in

Los

re

sear

ch a

nd t

rain

ing

B

años

ca

paci

ty

Res

earc

h an

d no

n-19

88-9

5A

usA

idN

one

de

gree

tra

inin

gD

. Puc

krid

ge, p

art-

time

liais

on s

cien

tist,

19

96-9

7G

.L.

Den

ning

, de

fac

to li

aiso

n sc

ient

ist

(fro

m

Los

Bañ

os)

1997

-98

M.A

. B

ell,

de f

acto

liai

son

scie

ntis

t (f

rom

Los

B

años

) to

dat

e

8

Table 4. Factors used in previous MTP for determining involvement and IRRIpriorities.

MTP criteria Indicator IPMO criteria forgrouping countries

Future rice demand Per capita consumption Rice area

Alleviating poverty and Calorie deprivation Level of NARS food insecurity

Sustainability Rice area under unfavorable History of collaboration ecosystems (unsustainability) and distanceArea under rice-rice

Alternative suppliers Agricultural research of research expenditure

Modifiers

Gender equity Likelihood of spillover

Sustaining high yields and NARS contribution to shifting the yield frontier IRRI’s global agenda

Need for critical minimum effort

Table 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 AEZ8

Country 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 with

summer rainfall rainfall summer rainfall

Bangladesh 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 1

Africa 105 11Latin America 34 3

9

Notes from Table 5:Definitions and countries within Asia represented by agroecological zones (AEZ).

Zone Definition Countries represented in AEZ

AEZ1 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, Pakistan

tropics 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 Asia

Table 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 household

dependent 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 input

10

Table 7a. Country groupings based on significance of rice and extent ofpoverty (as estimated by child mortality).

High Korea (S) Indonesia BangladeshMalaysia Philippines Cambodia

Sri Lanka Lao PDRThailand MyanmarVietnam Nepal

Medium Japan Bhutan ChinaIndiaMadagascarKorea (N)

Low USA Brazil PakistanAustralia PeruFrance Iran

Egypt

Low Medium High

Poverty

• Child mortality per 1,000 births as an index of poverty: Low = <20, Medium = 20–60; High = >60.

Significance of rice(as percent ofarable land area)

Table 7b. Country groupings based on significance of rice and humandevelopment index.

High Korea (S) Malaysia Lao PDRThailand NepalPhilippines BangladeshSri LankaIndonesiaVietnamMyanmarCambodia

Medium Japan China BhutanIndia Madagascar

Korea (N)

Low USA Brazil PakistanAustralia PeruFrance Iran

EgyptPakistan

High Medium Low

Poverty

Significance of rice(as percent ofarable land area)

• UNDP human development index as an index for poverty: Low = >0.8, Medium = 0.5–0.8, High = <0.5.• Significance of rice: rice as a percent of arable land: Low = <25%, Medium = 25–50%, High = >50%.

11

Tabl

e 8.

Sum

mar

y ta

ble

of c

ount

ries

bas

ed o

n di

ffer

ent

indi

cato

rs.

Foc

us (

see

expl

anat

ions

bel

ow)

Mod

ifier

s(s

uch

as s

ocio

-pol

itica

lC

ount

ryP

over

ty

S

igni

fican

ceA

gric

ultu

re

In

stitu

tiona

lF

ood

Sus

tain

abili

tyf In

com

e/P

oten

tial

syst

em, N

AR

ES

alle

viat

iona

o

f ric

ebas

of

%

c

apac

ityse

curi

tye

rice

for

dem

and)

of G

DP

c

ne

edsd

relia

nceg

impa

ct?

12

12

Ban

glad

esh

HH

HM

MM

HM

HM

-HB

huta

nM

MH

HH

HM

Cam

bodi

aH

HH

HH

HL

LM

HC

hina

MM

MM

LL

LM

HH

Indi

aH

MM

MM

ML

LH

M-H

Indo

nesi

aM

HH

MM

LL

MH

M-H

Kor

ea (

N)

HM

LH

MH

HM

LS

yste

m c

halle

nges

Lao

PD

RH

HH

HH

MM

LM

M-H

Mya

nmar

HH

HH

HM

LL

ML

Sys

tem

cha

lleng

esN

epal

HH

MH

LH

LL

HM

Pak

ista

nH

LL

ML

ML

LH

L-M

Sys

tem

cha

lleng

esP

hilip

pine

sM

HM

ML

MH

MH

M-H

Sri

Lank

aL-

MH

MM

MM

LH

HM

Tha

iland

MH

ML

MH

LL

MM

-HV

ietn

amM

HH

ML

LL

MH

HLa

tin A

mer

ica

and

C

arib

bean

Iran

ML

LM

LL

HL

MA

fric

aM

Mad

agas

car

HM

MH

HH

LL

MH

igh

inco

me,

se

lf-re

liant

Kor

ea (

S)

LH

ML

LL

LH

LL

Sys

tem

adv

ance

d, y

ield

s hi

ghJa

pan

LM

LL

LM

LH

LL

Sys

tem

adv

ance

d, y

ield

s hi

ghM

alay

sia

LH

ML

LH

HH

LL-

M

Def

initi

ons

for

Tabl

e 8.

a Chi

ld m

orta

lity

per

1,00

0 bi

rths

as

an in

dex

of p

over

ty:

L =

<20

, M

= 2

0–60

, H

= >

60.

b Sig

nific

ance

of

rice.

• 1

= r

ice

as a

per

cent

of a

rabl

e la

nd: L

= <

25%

, M =

25–

50%

, H =

>50

%•

2 =

con

sum

ptio

n in

kg

per

capi

ta: L

= <

100,

M =

100

–200

, H =

>20

0c A

gric

ultu

re a

s a

perc

ent o

f GD

P: L

= <

15%

, M =

15–

30%

, H =

>30

%d I

nstit

utio

nal c

apac

ity n

eeds

: 1

= h

a pe

r re

sear

cher

as

an in

dex:

L =

<10

,000

, M

= 1

0,00

0–20

,000

, H

= >

20,0

00;

2 =

del

iver

y ca

paci

ty:

base

d on

rat

e of

yie

ld g

ain

1961

-98

(kg

ha–1

y–1

): L

= <

27,

M =

27–

54,

H=

>54

(54

= w

orld

ave

rage

).e F

ood

secu

rity—

rice

impo

rtat

ion

(kg)

per

cap

ita a

s an

inde

x: L

= <

10, M

= 1

0–20

, H =

>20

.f S

usta

inab

ility

—pe

ople

per

ara

ble

ha a

s an

inde

x: L

= <

10, M

= 1

0–20

, H =

>20

.g I

ncom

e/ric

e re

lianc

e (f

rom

Hos

sain

199

6).

L =

hig

h in

com

e, s

elf-

relia

nt,

M =

exc

ess

rice

prod

uctio

n ca

paci

ty,

H =

ris

k of

foo

d in

secu

rity.

12

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). How-ever, 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 1961

to 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.

Table 8 shows how the countries rate interms of several of the criteria (including group-ings based on the definition of Hossain (1996)).

Modes of collaboration

IRRI’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, biotech-

nology),• Strategic research (e.g., weed ecology

studies), or• Applied research including technology

development, evaluation, adaptation, anddelivery (e.g., field-level technology develop-ment).

Potential involvement across rice-growingcountries can be based on several criteria.

The dominant factors remain the significanceof rice and the extent of poverty.

13

Population density (people ha–1)

Fig. 2. Population density (total population per total land area, in ha) of various rice-growing countries.

Population (millions)

Fig. 1. Total population (millions) of various rice-growing countries.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

ChinaIn

diaUSA

Indonesia

Brazil

Pakista

n

Japan

Bangladesh

Vietnam

Philippines

Iran

Egypt

Thailand

Korea

(S)

Mya

nmar

Colombia

Tanzania

KenyaPeru

Korea

(N)

Nepal

Malays

ia

Uganda

SriLanka

Australia

Moza

mbique

Madagasc

ar

Cambodia

LaoPDR

Bhutan

Country

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Bangladesh

Korea

(S)

Japan

India

SriLanka

Philippines

Vietnam

Korea

(N)

Pakista

n

Nepal

China

Thailand

Indonesia

Uganda

Malays

ia

Mya

nmar

Egypt

Cambodia

Kenya Iran

Colombia

Tanzania

USA

Madagasc

ar

LaoPDR

Moza

mbique

Peru

Brazil

Bhutan

Australia

Country

14

Cubic meters

Fig. 4. Annual per capita internal renewable water resources (1998, cubic meters).

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

LaoPDR

Bhutan

Brazil

Colombia

Mya

nmar

Malays

ia

Madagasc

ar

Australia

Indonesia

BangladeshUSA

Cambodia

Nepal

Moza

mbique

Vietnam

Philippines

Japan

Korea

(N)

Tanzania

SriLanka

ChinaIn

dia

Thailand

UgandaIra

n

Pakista

nPeru

Korea

(S)

KenyaEgyp

t

Country

Persons arable ha–1

Fig. 3. Productivity demand (persons arable ha–1) for various rice-growing countries.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Egypt

Japan

Korea

(S)

Malays

ia

SriLanka

Vietnam

Korea

(N)

China

Philippines

Bangladesh

Tanzania

Indonesia

Nepal

Colombia

Bhutan

LaoPDR

KenyaPeru

Madagasc

ar

Pakista

nIn

dia

Moza

mbique

Cambodia

Mya

nmar

UgandaIra

n

Brazil

Thailand

USA

Australia

Countr y

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nepal

Uganda

Bhutan

Bangladesh

Thailand

Cambodia

LaoPDR

SriLanka

Vietnam

Tanzania

Mya

nmar

India

Madagasc

ar

Kenya

China

Pakista

n

Indonesia

Moza

mbique

Egypt

Malays

ia

Philippines

Iran

Korea

(N)

Peru

Colombia

USAJa

panBra

zil

Korea

(S)

Australia

Country

Rural population (%)

Fig. 6. Rural population (as % of total population) for various rice-growing countries.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

USA

Madagasc

ar

Pakista

nIra

n

Australia

Egypt

Malays

ia

Japan

Korea

(N)

Philippines

Korea

(S)

India

Thailand

SriLanka

China

Vietnam

Peru

LaoPDR

Brazil

Bangladesh

Colombia

Nepal

Mya

nmar

Indonesia

Kenya

Cambodia

Moza

mbique

Tanzania

Uganda

Bhutan

Country

Cubic meters

Fig. 5. Annual per capita withdrawal (cubic meters).

16

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Cambodia

Madagasc

ar

Tanzania

Moza

mbique

Bhutan

Korea

(N)

Uganda

Nepal

Mya

nmar

LaoPDR

Bangladesh

KenyaIn

dia

Vietnam

Pakista

n

SriLanka

Indonesia

Egypt

Philippines

ChinaPeru

Iran

Thailand

Brazil

Colombia

Malays

ia

Korea

(S)

Australia

Japan

USA

Country

Fig. 8. Purchasing power parity for various rice-growing countries.

US$

Rural labor arable ha–1

Fig. 7. Rural labor abundance (rural workers arable ha–1) for various rice-growing countries.

0

2

4

6

8

10

Bhutan

China

Tanzania

Vietnam

Nepal

Egypt

SriLanka

Bangladesh

Kenya

LaoPDR

Indonesia

Moza

mbique

Madagasc

ar

Korea

(N)

Philippines

Malays

ia

Mya

nmar

Cambodia

UgandaIn

dia

Korea

(S)

Pakista

n

Thailand

Colombia

Japan

PeruIra

nBra

zilUSA

Australia

Country

17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Vietnam

Bangladesh

SriLanka

LaoPDR

Cambodia

Malays

ia

Nepal

Philippines

Mya

nmar

Indonesia

Korea

(S)

Thailand

Madagasc

ar

Japan

Korea

(N)

China

Bhutan

India

Egypt

Tanzania

Pakista

n

Colombia

Brazil

Moza

mbique

PeruIra

n

UgandaUSA

Kenya

Australia

Country

Consumption (kg/capita/yr) (1997)

Rice area/arable land area (%)

Fig. 10. Significance of rice (consumption and area planted) for various rice-growing countries.

Consumption (kg capita–1 y–1) (1997)

Rice area arable land area–1 (%)

Fig. 9. Agriculture as a percentage of the gross domestic product for various rice-growing countries.

Agriculture as a percentage of gross domestic product

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mya

nmar

LaoPDR

Cambodia

Tanzania

Uganda

Nepal

Bhutan

Moza

mbique

Madagasc

ar

Vietnam

India

Pakista

n

Kenya

Bangladesh

SriLanka

Indonesia

Colombia

China

Philippines

Egypt

Iran

Thailand

Malays

iaBra

zilPeru

Korea

(S)

Australia

Japan

USA

Country

18

Fig. 12. Total rice production (1998).

Production (million t)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

World Asia

ChinaIn

dia

Indonesia

Vietnam

Bangladesh

Thailand

Mya

nmar

Japan

Philippines

USABra

zil

Pakista

n

Korea

(S)

Egypt

Nepal

Cambodia

Iran

SriLanka

Madagasc

ar

Korea

(N)

Malays

ia

Colombia

LaoPDR

Peru

Australia

Tanzania

Moza

mbique

Uganda

Kenya

Bhutan

Country or region

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

India

China

Indonesia

Bangladesh

Thailand

Vietnam

Mya

nmar

Brazil

Philippines

Pakista

n

Cambodia

Japan

Nepal

Madagasc

arUSA

Korea

(S)

SriLanka

Korea

(N)

Malays

iaIra

n

LaoPDR

Tanzania

Egypt

Colombia

Moza

mbique

Peru

Australia

Uganda

Bhutan

Kenya

Country

Percentage of world rice area

Fig. 11. Percentage of world rice area for various rice-growing countries.

19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Australia

Egypt

Korea

(S)

USAJa

pan

ChinaPeru

Iran

Colombia

Indonesia

Vietnam

Asia

World

Korea

(N)

SriLanka

Mya

nmar

Malays

iaIn

dia

Pakista

n

Kenya

Bangladesh

LaoPDR

Philippines

Brazil

Nepal

Thailand

Madagasc

ar

Cambodia

Bhutan

Tanzania

Uganda

Moza

mbique

Country or region

Yield (t ha–1)

Fig. 13. National average rice yields (1998, t ha–1) for various rice-growing countries.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Percent rice area irrigated

gy

()

()

Australia

Japan

World

`

Asia

Bangaldesh

BhutanCambodia

China

India

Indonesia Iran

Korea (N)

Korea (S)

Lao PDR MalaysiaMyanmar

NepalPakistan

PhilippinesSri Lanka

Thailand

Vietnam

Egypt

Kenya

Madagascar

Mozambique

TanzaniaUganda

Brazil

Colombia

Peru

USA

Average national yield (t ha–1), 1998

Fig. 14. Average national yields (t ha–1) in 1998 versus percent rice area irrigated.

20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Year

WorldAsiaBangladeshBhutanCambodiaChinaIndiaIndonesiaIranKorea (N)Korea (S)Lao PDRMalaysiaMyanmarNepalPakistanPhilippinesSri LankaThailandVietnam

Yield (t ha–1)

Fig. 15. Rice yields versus time for selected rice-growing countries.

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

00

20

China

Australia

Egypt

Indonesia

Colombia

Korea

(S)

USAAsia

Vietnam

World Ira

n

LaoPDR

Mya

nmar

Peru

Philippines

SriLanka

India

Pakista

n

Bangladesh

Malays

iaBra

zil

Japan

Tanzania

Nepal

Thailand

Cambodia

Uganda

Madagasc

ar

Kenya

Bhutan

Moza

mbique

Korea

(N)

Country or region

Rate of yield gain (kg ha–1 y–1)

Fig. 16. Average rate of yield gain (kg ha–1 y–1) from 1968 to 1998.

–

–

Korea

(N)

21

Production (kg capita–1 y–1)

Consumption (kg capita–1 y–1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Myanmar

VietnamBangladesh Cambodia

China

India

Indonesia

Iran

Korea (N)

Korea (S)

Lao PDR

Malaysia

Nepal

Pakistan

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Egypt

Kenya

Madagascar

MozambiqueTanzaniaUganda

Brazil

Colombia

Peru

USA Australia

Japan

1:1 line

Fig. 17. Production versus consumption for various rice-growing countries.

Fig. 18. Significance of rice (as percent of arable land) versus purchasing power parity for various rice-growing countries.

Significance of rice (rice as % of arable area)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Purchasing power parity (US$)

Japan

Australia USA

Vietnam

Bangladesh

Sri LankaLao PDR

Cambodia

Malaysia

Philippines

Myanmar/Nepal

Indonesia

Korea (S)

ThailandMadagascar

Korea (N)China

India Egypt

Bhutan

Tanzania

Pakistan BrazilMozambique Peru Iran

Uganda/Kenya

Colombia

22

Activities can involve• Exchanges of

• Germplasm• Prototypes• Information/knowledge

• Delivery enhancement—including technol-ogy delivery (research use) and decisionsupport systems and tools (DSS and DST)

• Policy• Capacity (and infrastructure) building• Visits or consultancies

The 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 aver-ages are 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.)

Criteria for IRRI office in country

Once 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 coun-

tries, 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 de-mand, 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).

High Malaysia Japan AustraliaPakistan USAPhilippines China

IranKorea (S)Vietnam

Medium Korea (N) Bangladesh IndonesiaNepal IndiaThailand Sri Lanka

Low Bhutan Lao PDRCambodia Myanmar

Low Medium High

National delivery capacity (based on rates of yield increase)

Note: national research capacity based on ha per researcher as an index: High = <10,000, Medium= 10,000–20,000, Low = >20,000; national delivery capacity (based on the rate of yield increase,1961-98): Low = <25, Medium = 25–50, High = >50 kg ha–1 y–1.

National researchcapacity (based onha per researcher)

Appropriate research involvement for IRRI in acountry depends on the needs and level ofdevelopment of the country and this can be

upstream, strategic, or applied and can takethe form of provider, facilitator, or collaborator.

23

Tabl

e 10

. C

ount

ry g

roup

ings

and

lik

ely

form

s of

int

erac

tion.

Eco

nom

yaC

apac

ityC

ount

ries

Opp

ortu

nitie

s

I.C

ount

ries

with

adv

ance

d pr

oduc

tion

syst

ems

and

wel

l-de

velo

ped

econ

omie

s, r

ice

may

or

may

not

be

sign

ifica

nt,

self-

suff

icie

ncy

not

a m

ajor

eco

nom

icis

sue

(but

may

be

a m

ajor

cul

tura

l is

sue)

Hig

hR

esea

rch

and

Aus

tral

ia,

Fra

nce,

Jap

an,

US

A•

IRR

I’s r

ole

is p

rimar

ily th

at o

f fac

ilita

tor

and

colla

bora

tor

de

liver

y ve

ry h

igh

•S

trat

egic

and

ups

trea

m r

esea

rch

colla

bora

tion

•IR

RI

may

act

on

beha

lf of

the

cou

ntry

as

a fa

cilit

ator

. In

the

se c

ases

,U

pper

mid

dle

Res

earc

h an

dB

razi

l, M

alay

sia,

Kor

ea (

S)

coun

trie

s us

e IR

RI’s

net

wor

ks a

nd li

nkag

es t

o co

nduc

t ac

tiviti

es in

de

liver

y ve

ry h

igh

othe

r (le

ss d

evel

oped

) co

untr

ies

•Le

arni

ng c

urve

exp

erie

nces

•T

hese

cou

ntrie

s ar

e pr

ovid

ers

in t

heir

own

right

, be

ing

sour

ces

ofte

chno

logy

, kn

owle

dge,

and

fun

ds

II.C

ount

ries

with

low

- to

low

er-m

iddl

e-in

com

e ec

onom

ies,

res

earc

h an

d de

liver

y ca

paci

ties

gene

rally

hig

h, p

over

ty—

sign

ifica

nt l

evel

s, r

ice—

self-

suff

icie

nt(o

r al

mos

t),

rice

hig

hly

sign

ifica

nt,

popu

latio

n pr

essu

res

med

ium

to

high

, fo

od s

ecur

ity a

maj

or i

ssue

Low

er m

iddl

eR

esea

rch

gene

rally

hig

h,P

hilip

pine

s, S

ri La

nka,

Tha

iland

•M

ixed

res

earc

h op

port

uniti

es.

IRR

I’s r

ole

is a

mix

of

faci

litat

or,

de

liver

y va

riabl

eco

llabo

rato

r, an

d pr

ovid

er (

the

latte

r be

ing

espe

cial

ly in

rel

atio

n to

adva

nced

tra

inin

g ne

eds)

Lo

wR

esea

rch

gene

rally

hig

h,C

hina

, Ind

ones

ia, V

ietn

am•

Maj

or e

mph

asis

is o

n de

velo

ping

str

ateg

ic a

nd a

pplie

d re

sear

ch

deliv

ery

gene

rally

hig

hca

paci

ties

with

spe

cial

foc

us o

n su

stai

nabi

lity

rese

arch

to

ensu

refo

od s

ecur

ity i

n ad

just

ing

to s

hifts

in

land

, la

bor,

and

wat

er s

hort

ages

•M

ajor

mod

e of

str

engt

heni

ng i

s re

sear

ch c

olla

bora

tion

thro

ugh

rese

arch

con

sort

ia a

nd b

ilate

ral N

AR

ES

-IR

RI p

rogr

ams

•C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

emph

asis

is m

ore

on s

trat

egic

and

app

lied

rese

arch

•O

ppor

tuni

ties

for

rese

arch

int

o ar

eas

with

spi

llove

r to

oth

er c

ount

ries

may

jus

tify

invo

lvem

ent,

whe

re a

n in

-cou

ntry

ana

lysi

s pe

r se

may

not

•V

aria

ble

emph

asis

on

activ

ities

rel

ated

to

eval

uatio

n, a

dapt

atio

n, a

ndde

liver

y of

res

earc

h pr

oduc

ts a

s th

ey c

an a

t tim

es b

e ad

equa

tely

met

by t

he N

AR

ES

’ ow

n ca

paci

ty•

Res

earc

h co

nsor

tium

mem

ber

III.

Cou

ntri

es w

ith l

ow-i

ncom

e ec

onom

ies,

res

earc

h ca

paci

ty r

easo

nabl

e, d

eliv

ery

capa

city

low

to

mod

erat

e, p

over

ty—

sign

ifica

nt l

evel

s, r

ice—

self-

suff

icie

nt(o

r al

mos

t),

rice

hig

hly

sign

ifica

nt,

popu

latio

n pr

essu

res

med

ium

to

high

, fo

od s

ecur

ity a

maj

or i

ssue

Lo

wR

esea

rch

mod

erat

e to

Ban

glad

esh,

Indi

a, N

epal

, Pak

ista

n•

IRR

I’s r

ole

is a

mix

of

faci

litat

or,

colla

bora

tor,

and

prov

ider

hi

gh,

deliv

ery

low

•R

equi

res

a ba

lanc

e of

act

iviti

es t

o su

ppor

t st

rate

gic

and

appl

ied

to

mod

erat

ere

sear

ch a

nd t

he e

valu

atio

n, a

dapt

atio

n, a

nd d

eliv

ery

of r

esea

rch

pro

du

cts

•S

usta

inab

ility

res

earc

h ad

just

ing

to s

hifts

in

land

, la

bor,

and

wat

ersh

ort

ag

es

•C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

24

Tabl

e 10

(co

ntin

ued)

.

Eco

nom

yaC

apac

ityC

ount

ries

Opp

ortu

nitie

s

IV.

Cou

ntri

es w

ith l

ow-i

ncom

e ec

onom

ies,

res

earc

h an

d de

liver

y ca

paci

ties

need

maj

or s

tren

gthe

ning

, po

vert

y—si

gnifi

cant

lev

els,

ri

ce—

self-

suff

icie

nt (

oral

mos

t),

rice

hig

hly

sign

ifica

nt,

popu

latio

n pr

essu

res

med

ium

to

high

, fo

od s

ecur

ity a

maj

or i

ssue

Lo

wR

esea

rch

rela

tivel

y lo

wB

huta

n, C

ambo

dia,

Lao

PD

R,

•IR

RI’s

dom

inan

t ro

le h

ere

is t

hat

of p

rovi

der—

ofte

n w

ith s

taff

base

d

Mya

nmar

, K

orea

(N

), M

adag

asca

rin

the

cou

ntry

. As

NA

RE

S’ c

apac

ities

gro

w,

the

role

s in

fac

ilita

tion

and

colla

bora

tion

deve

lop

•N

eed

sign

ifica

nt c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

and

appl

ied

rese

arch

col

labo

ratio

n•

Gre

ater

em

phas

is is

pla

ced

on e

valu

atio

n, a

dapt

atio

n, a

nd d

eliv

ery

ofre

sear

ch p

rodu

cts

thro

ugh

inje

ctio

n of

lar

ge b

ilate

ral

dono

r su

ppor

tfa

cilit

ated

thro

ugh

IRR

I•

As

they

im

prov

e th

eir

capa

citie

s, t

hey

beco

me

mem

bers

of

rese

arch

cons

ortia

V.

Cou

ntri

es w

ith l

ow t

o lo

wer

-mid

dle-

inco

me

econ

omie

s, s

mal

l ri

ce-p

rodu

cing

cou

ntri

es r

eque

stin

g as

sist

ance

Low

er-m

iddl

eR

esea

rch

mod

erat

ely

Col

ombi

a, C

osta

Ric

a, C

uba,

Iran

,•

IRR

I’s d

omin

ant

role

her

e is

typ

ical

ly t

hat

of (

long

-dis

tanc

e) p

rovi

der,

hi

gh,

deliv

ery

varia

ble

Egy

pt, M

exic

o, P

eru

with

min

imal

rol

e in

faci

litat

ion

and

colla

bora

tion.

•S

ome

stra

tegi

c le

arni

ng c

urve

opp

ortu

nitie

sL

ow

Res

earc

h m

oder

atel

yN

icar

agua

•F

or s

tron

ger

NA

RE

S, I

RR

I Los

Bañ

os p

rovi

des

limite

d su

ppor

t

high

, de

liver

y va

riabl

eth

roug

h ad

vanc

ed d

egre

e pr

ogra

ms

and

focu

sed

upst

ream

tra

inin

g•

For

rel

ativ

ely

wea

k N

AR

ES

, IR

RI L

os B

años

pro

vide

s lim

ited

supp

ort

Lo

wR

esea

rch

low

,K

enya

, M

alaw

i, M

ozam

biqu

e,to

NA

RE

S f

or d

egre

e pr

ogra

ms

and

focu

sed

trai

ning

de

liver

y lo

w T

anza

nia,

Uga

nda

•G

erm

plas

m a

nd in

form

atio

n ex

chan

ge•

Spo

nsor

ed c

onsu

ltanc

ies

•B

eing

gen

eral

ly d

ista

nt f

rom

IR

RI

Los

Bañ

os,

a lo

w-c

ost

appr

oach

isus

ed f

or m

eetin

g th

eir

need

s, m

ostly

by

part

icip

atin

g in

tec

hnol

ogy

eval

uatio

n ne

twor

ks o

r re

gion

al p

rogr

ams

or n

etw

orks

•M

inim

al p

erso

nnel

sup

port

from

IRR

I Los

Bañ

os

a Wor

ld B

ank

econ

omic

cla

ssifi

catio

n: lo

w-in

com

e ec

onom

ies

= <

US

$760

, low

er-m

iddl

e-in

com

e ec

onom

ies

= U

S$7

61–3

,030

, upp

er-m

iddl

e-in

com

e ec

onom

ies

= U

S$3

,031

–9,3

60, h

igh-

inco

me

econ

omie

s =

>US

$9,3

61.

25

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.

Criteria for differentiating involvement

When all the dominant and modifying factors arecombined, five generic forms of interactionemerge based on the level of economic develop-ment, strength of the national research anddelivery system, extent of poverty, level ofproduction systems, and importance of self-sufficiency and food security (Table 10).

Criteria for evaluating RD&D focus

When 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—significance

of problem• Spillover effects (flow to other regions and

countries)• Alternative suppliers of RD&D• Comparative advantage• Other factors, such as public/donor percep-

tions/values, socio-political settingAnother issue is to highlight the appropriate

role that IRRI needs to play in terms of delivery

and 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 a

research 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 develop-ment organizations to test technologies anddevelop delivery methodologies that allow forthe effective communication of options to awider group of beneficiaries.Thus, the rationale for IRRI involvement in

delivery at the field level is that• there is NARES commitment (to ensure

sustainability of effort),• public goods such as knowledge or principles

that can be applied elsewhere are generated,• NARES human resources for sustainability

and impact are developed, and• efforts feed into the development efforts of

other partners.To highlight this approach, IRRI RD&D

embraces “research for development” that keepsthe institutional focus on research while recog-nizing the need for the research to be used.IRRI’s role therefore includes facilitating,understanding, and documenting delivery.

Target and means of delivery

In considering IRRI’s desire to increase impact,we need to consider what are the productsproduced, who are the target groups, and what

IRRI’s physical presence in a countrydepends on the extent and form of IRRI

activities in the country, host-country demand,and availability of funds.

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.

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 comparative

advantage. The need for use of researchmeans that IRRI works with but does

not replace development partners.

26

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 research

relevance and efficiency, the “content-process-local knowledge” framework provides a robustmodel:• Content refers to the researcher and knowl-

edge and understanding of the technology• Process refers to the delivery of the knowl-

edge—packaging and presentation• Local knowledge refers to the inclusion in

the process of local input to ensure rel-evance and 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 Targets

Germplasm Networks DonorsTechnology Scientist to scientist MediaKnowledge Consortia General public• Policy Training NARES• Decision support • Short course • Research systems 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 strengthening

Table 12. Forms of impact from efforts of an internationalorganization.

Research Introduce new paradigms in research approachAdopt new research and analytical methodsUse generic materials in breeding of new cultivars

Policy Change policyEstablish new regulationsDevelop systems to facilitate adoption

Extension system Use products and knowledge in extensionAdopt new information delivery approaches

Farmers Practice changeIncrease productivityReduce health risks

27

The figure below highlights the need forinteraction, but also indicates that there should beopportunities for independent action.

When 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 recog-nizes that 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 consid-

ered.Although the model provides the framework,

other partnership factors need to be consideredin successful delivery. In studying various

projects, several issues have emerged as criticalin selecting partners, including1. Project driver: Someone from one of the

organizations 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, explic-itly, and openly: Common vision and goalsare keys to success. Engage all the collabo-rating organizations 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 good-will.

Table 13. Factors involved in ensuring research relevance.

Problem Cause(s) Options Content Process Local knowledge Modifiers/specialists/role players/role players/role considerations

Knowledge

Relevance

Delivery

Content

Process

Local

knowledge

28

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 “buy-in” 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 main-taining collaborative 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 partner-ships involve 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 con-cerns in developing partnerships.

Bibliography

Hossain 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 Inter-national in association with the InternationalRice Research Institute.

IRRI. 1995. World rice statistics 1993-1994. LosBaños (Philippines): International RiceResearch Institute.

World Resources. 1998. 1998-99 world re-sources: a guide to the global environment,environmental change and human health. Ajoint publication of The World ResourcesInstitute, The United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, The United Nations Develop-ment Programme, and The World Bank.Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.

UNDP (United Nations DevelopmentProgramme). Human development report1999. Oxford (UK): Oxford UniversityPress.

To achieve impact, IRRI has to facilitate thecommunication of viable options to and with

the target group. This necessitates goodproblem and opportunity analysis, clear

identification of the beneficiaries and theirneeds and perceptions, and understanding of

effective presentation and delivery mecha-nisms. A three-part framework has been

established to facilitate this.

Web database sites

World 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/

29

Appendix 1. Groupings and modes of collaborationfrom previous medium-term plan.

Group characteristics Mode and strategies of collaboration

Group 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 capacities

the 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-IRRI

disciplines related to rice programs• Relatively long history of collaboration (>10 years) • Training emphasis is more on strategic and applied research

with 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 by

to Ph.D. level NARS’ own capacityExamples: Bangladesh, India, China

Group 2• Usually medium to large rice-growing countries

(>500,000 ha)• Established national research institutions covering • Require a balance of activities to support strategic and

the major rice-growing regions and ecosystems applied research and the evaluation, adaptation, and delivery• Scientists trained to the M.S. level in most major of research products

disciplines related to rice• A history of collaboration with IRRI (>5 years)

in applied research areas• One or more universities that have graduate

programs to the M.S. levelExample: Vietnam

Group 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, and

or not yet established for the major rice-growing delivery of research products through injection of largeregions and ecosystems bilateral 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: Cambodia

Group 4• Small rice-growing countries (<200,000 ha) • Being distant from IRRI Los Baños, a low-cost approach is• Often distant from IRRI Los Baños being used for meeting their needs, mostly through• Have national research institutions covering participation in technology evaluation networks or regional

the major disciplines related to rice programs or networks• History of participation in INGER • For stronger NARS, IRRI Los Baños provides limited support• One or more universities that have graduate through advanced degree programs and focused upstream

programs to the M.S. level trainingExample: Cuba • Minimal personnel support from IRRI Los Baños

Group 5• Small rice-growing countries (<200,000 ha) • Being distant from IRRI Los Baños, a low-cost approach is• Often distant from IRRI Los Baños being used for meeting their needs, mostly through• National research institutions newly established participation in technology evaluation networks or regional

or not yet established for the major rice-growing programs or networksregions and ecosystems • For stronger NARS, IRRI Los Baños provides limited support

• Few scientists trained to the M.S. level in the through advanced degree programs and focused upstreamkey disciplines related to rice training

• Little or no history of research collaboration with IRRI • Minimal personnel support from IRRI Los BañosExample: Zambia

30

1. Client focus. A good country-assistance strategy (CAS) is grounded in the country’s political, economic, and social

context. It starts with a discussion of country conditions and the government’s priorities and development strategy. It

includes an evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of ongoing reform programs, their implications for

private-sector development and sustainable growth and development, and their social impact. It is carried by strong

country ownership and broad stakeholder consultation (pursued with prior general agreement of the government), but

candidly 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 and

Bank resource allocation, with the objective of maximizing development impact. This involves (i) assessing the relative

magnitude and likelihood of the impact of alternative Bank group activities on the ground; (ii) taking into account the

Bank’s comparative advantage vis-à-vis others, track record, costs, and risks; and (iii) prioritizing activities across and

within 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 proposed

Bank program clearly to the poverty assessment and explains how key lending and nonlending services contribute to

poverty 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 and

vulnerability and the Bank program.

5. Governance and institutions. A good CAS diagnoses governance/corruption, institutional effectiveness, and

implementation capacity issues and, where relevant, addresses them in the proposed Bank lending or nonlending

program.

6. Self-evaluation and lessons from experience. A good CAS includes a frank discussion of the track record of Bank

involvement, a thorough and candid portfolio analysis, and “lessons learned.” It fully integrates findings from the

Operations 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 with

external partners (IMF, multilateral development banks, bilaterals, private sector, NGOs, etc.). It includes a Bank lending

and nonlending program and involves a division of labor with others in line with the comparative advantage of the Bank

and 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 group

strategy, 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 for

Bank assistance (low, base, high case), with a strong link between performance and aid effectiveness and the level of

Bank 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 mitigation

measures, and candidly recognizes the risk to the Bank.

Appendix 2. Ten features of a good country-assistance strategy.(from World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/html/pic/cas/tenfeat.htm)