7.1 Governance and Leadership
7.2 Organizational Structure
7.3 Planning and Review Processes
7.4 Research Management
7.5 Institutional Relationships and External Operations
Overall authority for IRRI's mandate and mission, embodied in IRRI's 1995 charter, is vested in a Board of Trustees composed of 15 members (12 members-at-large and 3 ex-officio: the Secretary of Agriculture, Republic of the Philippines; the President of the University of the Philippines; the Director General of the Institute). The membership of the Board since 1990 (Table 7.1) shows the nationality, specialization, gender, and terms of office of the respective members and the positions on the Board held by the current incumbents.
The current Board has a reasonable blend of complementary expertise, gender, and country representation. It is important to have sufficient members with science specializations, as IRRI's future research programme is expected to move rapidly into new strategic areas. The Panel realizes that balancing all the relevant factors - specialization, gender, national origins, ability to open doors to donors, and be representative of the rice-growing countries -is not easy. The Board appears to have given considerable weight to national origin and to political influence in the past. The Panel believes that when Trustee selection is based on eminence in their respective fields, be it science, finance, or management, Trustees' influence on donors should follow naturally, and that these factors should be preeminent in seeking nominees for the Board.
The Panel noted the availability of a concise handbook for Trustees, summarizing useful information. After comparing this document with the comprehensive set of reference guides to Centres and Boards of Trustees, published by the CGIAR Secretariat, the Panel suggests that the handbook be revised to include missing topics such as Board self-assessments, assessments of the DG, the selection process for choosing a DG, and the relationships between the Board and the DG.
The Board has five Standing Committees: Executive; Audit and Finance; Nominating; Programme; Goodwill and Resource Generation. The last Committee was newly constituted in April 1996. The Board meets annually, and Standing Committees hold meetings whenever the Board meets, and schedule other meetings as necessary. In a centre of the size and complexity of IRRI, the Board and Standing Committees have a difficult task in prioritizing their activities at meetings. The Panel feels that the creation of a fifth Standing Committee for Goodwill and Resource Generation may dilute members' contributions to the other committees and doubts the value of this Committee. Members' influence and credibility in their own environments combined with the DG's role in fund-raising and donor relations, and the Institute's demonstration of its accomplishments, should be sufficiently effective to influence donors and generate goodwill.
The Panel had limited opportunity to see the Standing Committees in action. However, Minutes of the Board and all Standing Committees were perused and the Panel was also able to obtain the personal opinions of some of the Trustees. The Programme Committee Minutes show that the Committee was fully involved in the whole research programming cycle, commencing April 1996. It first guided the revision of the strategic plan, IRRI Towards 2020, and endorsed, after detailed discussion, the new Medium Term Plan (MTP, 1998 - 2003). This process culminated in April 1997 with endorsement of the final draft of the MTP by the full Board. The Minutes also show that other important policy issues, such as the Staff Restructuring Programme, were brought to the Board by IRRI's management for endorsement.
Table 7.1 Board of Trustees from 1990 to 1998
The Panel is of the opinion that better oversight by the Board over the preparation for the EPMR, including the commissioning of CCERs in selected research and management areas, would have been desirable (and greatly facilitated the EPMR Panel's work). The Panel also believes that with the retirement of a finance specialist from the Finance and Audit Committee, it is essential to strengthen the financial expertise of the Committee.
Since the fourth EPMR in 1992, there have been two changes in Board Chair. The first change occurred when an ex-officio member was elected as Chair for 1995, when a nominee to the Board, who was expected to be elected as Chair, became unavailable. The Chair in 1995 was re-elected for 1996. The current Chair was elected in April 1996 (when the previous Chair wished to step down due to other commitments) and re-elected for each of the years 1997 and 1998. The Panel commends the Chairmen for creating a good climate for Trustees to contribute to IRRI's governance. The Panel, however, was not able to find if and when the Board conducted a formal, systematic self-assessment of its own performance, or assessments of the DG. It believes that such assessments are extremely useful to Trustees, and fully endorses the CGIAR guideline that this is an essential task for the Board if the Centre is to realize its goals in the most efficient and effective way. Such assessments will achieve several objectives: clarify expectations between the Board and the DG, provide insights into the strengths and limitations of the DG's performance and skills, and, most importantly, defuse points of contention before they become sources of major disagreement.
The Panel recommends that the Board undertake annual self-assessments, and annual assessments of the DG, and that records be kept.
During the five years since the last EPMR, the DGs have been, successively, Dr. K. Lampe (to 1995) and Dr. G. Rothschild (to 1997). Both showed dedication to the purposes of the Institute, though through very different styles of management. During Dr. Lampe's period, his energetic leadership sustained a strong senior management team. He was also responsible for implementing a major programme of rehabilitation and refurbishment of IRRI facilities, for which he had successfully campaigned to raise the required capital. Under Dr. Rothschild, significant milestones were: updating of the long-term strategy, preparation of the current MTP, and the Staff Restructuring Programme (SRP). In the Panel's view, towards the end of this period the senior management staff did not function as an effective team and lines of authority were not clear, and this appears to have had a negative effect on staff morale generally. The Centre depended greatly upon the DDG Research at this stage. During 1997, three senior members of the management team, and the DG himself, resigned for varying reasons.
The Board has a strong nucleus of members with experience and skills in conducting business, but it has also had several members who contributed less than would have been expected. It is essential that the Board avoids this in the future. During the recent turbulent period, the Board's oversight has not been wholly successful. The Panel suggests that greater involvement by members of the Board, or at least the Executive Committee, would be beneficial. The present Board Chair is dynamic and fully involved, and the Centre is fortunate that Dr. Robert Havener has agreed to serve as Interim DG till the appointment of a new DG. The Panel is pleased to note that IRRI is in the process of filling the other senior management vacancies. This will ensure that the good scientific work of the Centre can continue smoothly under the leadership of the DDG Research. The filling of vacant management positions is now a critical challenge for the Board.
IRRI's organizational structure has been modified several times since 1987, in response to changing circumstances and needs. The current formal structure (Figure 7.1) is similar to that reviewed at the previous EPMR in February 1992, except that activities under Strengthening International Partnership, and in the Genetic Resources Center and the International Rice Genebank, have been consolidated into two new programmes, and brought into the programme axis of research management. This is in accordance with the funding allocation and the programme description in the latest MTP (1998-2000). However, the Panel understands that this is a temporary operational move pending a thorough review of the organization. It has not been entirely easy for the Panel .to determine exactly what the IRRI structure is at the present moment.
In September 1997, Management proposed a revised structure, and this proposal has now been further modified by a Task Force commissioned by the Board Chair. The objective was to achieve greater efficiency, responsiveness, and coherence. The Panel was asked to comment on this paper, though its current status is simply that of a proposal awaiting discussion by the Board. The Panel learned that the Task Force based the proposed re-configuration on the need for stronger linkage between research results from programmes, and their impact on IRRI's partners. While the Panel concurs with the Task Force that the linkage between Research Programmes and impact on IRRI's partners is of critical importance, and should be strengthened, it should not be at the cost of complexity and attendant transaction costs. The route proposed adds complexity which the Panel feels will be counter-productive at a time when the Institute is in need of organizational stability. However, the Task Force's proposal to combine the three Rainfed Programmes into one programme (Section 4.6), is a useful step in the right direction of reducing complexity. The Panel believes that after the new appointments of the DG and other senior managers have been made, the new team could reconsider the structures in due course.
In the meanwhile, the recent changes described above, including the consolidation of the Genetic Resource Centre and the International Rice Genebank as a "Division" under the DDG Research, could continue. The Panel believes that integrating the science of this division more seamlessly with that of the other disciplines is sensible. INGER will be housed in the new division appropriately close to the rest of the germplasm operation. The operational experience gathered with these temporary moves will provide additional input to any review undertaken of the organization.
On the Finance and Administration side of the IRRI organogram, the proposed elimination of the post of DDG for Finance and Administration, and replacement by two independent Heads - Finance; Administration and Human Resources - at the director level, appears to be a cost-effective move, and is workable if suitable candidates are appointed to these senior positions. Therefore, the Panel supports this move. The post of one new DDG is frozen, for the time being. For a number of years, an IRRI DDG has come from the host country, and the filling of this post will be a sensitive issue.
The Panel recommends that no major changes be made to the current organizational structure before the new DG has had time to consider whether changes are necessary.
It is important that management and staff shall not be diverted by the laborious tasks of introducing a new structure.
The Panel noted that IRRI has a well designed process for development of its research programme (Figure 7.2). Preparation of the latest MTP (for 1998 - 2003) was undertaken and processed in a systematic way over a period of 20 months before finalization. The starting point was the revision of the long-term strategy - IRRI Toward 2020. This strategy paper was produced in 1994 as a backdrop for planning. Major inputs for the revision in 1995-96 included: the outcome of the Rio Conference on the environment and natural resource management; the CGIAR emphasis on poverty alleviation; and emphasis on unfavourable ecosystems. A variety of inputs were used in the process - reviews of ongoing research, scenarios of likely changes in the external environment, and inputs from NARS, the Board, and TAC. The significant difference between previous planning cycles and this one was the systematic integration of all inputs, and the close participation of NARS in this exercise. By explicitly taking into account the strengths of the NARS, some of IRRI's research activities could either be fully devolved or undertaken through partnerships and collaborative efforts, thereby releasing IRRI resources to shift into more strategic areas where IRRI has demonstrable comparative advantages.
The Panel believes that the planning and priority-setting process is sound. It contains, in the right sequence, all the essential inputs and parameters for the development of a good portfolio of projects through a practical methodology for priority setting. The Panel also commends the thoroughness with which the Task Force produced the MTP. It was pleased to note the high degree of involvement by NARS representatives (from ten major rice-growing countries, including China and India), and the Board.
IRRI now has a six-year perspective plan, from which it has extracted the parameters for the current three-year MTP. This approach, of extracting the parameters for preparing a resourcing plan from a longer term plan, is sensible. On a practical note, it should enable IRRI to keep rolling its MTP forward from year to year without excessive effort.
Figure 7.1 IRRI Organizational Structure (as of February 1998)
Figure 7.2 Process of MTP Development
Assessment
The Panel considers that overall, IRRI has a good Medium-Term Plan, with realistic, yet sufficiently challenging goals. This end product is also proof that the process for its generation is sound. However, given the highly staff-intensive effort needed to go through a full planning cycle. Management should ensure that with the CGIAR's new guidelines for rolling the MTP forward annually, each annual exercise does not become a major planning exercise in its own right.
IRRI has a hierarchy of reviews for monitoring progress on projects. The frequency of reviews is flexible and left to the discretion of the Project and Programme Leaders. At a project level these could be twice or thrice a year; at a programme level, annual or semi-annual. These reviews feed into a Management Information System (MIS) for an annual review by Management. This forms the database for the review of achievements made in a DG report to the full Board, and an achievements and constraints presentation to the Programme Committee of the Board. The preparation (or the annual update) of the MTP provides another opportunity for reviewing progress and adjusting future plans in the light of progress achieved. The MIS returns contain a description, by project, of the significant achievements, and bottlenecks to progress. They do not, however, contain the milestones - i.e., outputs expected, nor target dates - as described in the project templates. These templates contain, in a standard format, comprehensive data on all projects including milestones, resource allocation, outputs expected, and estimated time to completion.
IRRI is in the process of implementing a computerized Project Monitoring System (PMS) which is expected to be fully operational in 1998. This database will include all the data from the templates. Achievements will feed into the database annually, extracted principally from researchers' Performance Evaluation System (PES). The PES is an evaluation system for all Internationally Recruited Staff (IRS). These are agreed work plans within projects against which achievements by the individual are evaluated annually. Because of the workload for the MTP and the SRP in 1996 and 1997, this system for evaluation has not been used over the last two years. It has been restarted in January 1998.
At an institute level, IRRI uses the peer review process to guide and change the direction for research, and to monitor the quality of its science. Of the seven reviews conducted from 1993 through 1997, three were Internally Commissioned External Reviews (peer reviews) and four donor initiated. No reviews were conducted in 1996 and 1997 due to the workload from the MTP and the SRP. However, no Centre Commissioned External Reviews (CCERs), a review process available to the Board to assess the quality and effectiveness of particular areas of a centre's work, have taken place.
Assessment
The internal reviews made explicitly for preparation of the MTP appear to have been thorough. However, the absence of CCERs handicapped the EPMR. The Panel strongly suggests that the Board identify specific areas for CCERs and set a timetable for undertaking them.
The systems in place for internal progress and quality monitoring are appropriate but can be of value only when used rigorously and consistently over all research projects. The Panel believes that the introduction of indicators for progress into the MIS returns will introduce rigour into the monitoring process and assist management in critically reviewing projects; not only for noting achievements but also as a resource for managing resources. This is even more important when resource planning is on a rolling basis. The Panel, therefore, suggests that indicators and milestones be explicitly included in the internal review process for projects.
IRRI revised its research organization from a discipline-oriented mode to a matrix management mode in 1990. The matrix was adopted as a means of ensuring the relevance of research programmes and projects to IRRI's goals, while maintaining scientific excellence. The current matrix, formally, has the five Ecosystems thematic Programmes - Irrigated Rice, Rainfed lowland Rice, Upland Rice, Flood-Prone Rice, Cross-Ecosystems, but operationally, already includes the two new programmes - Accelerating Impact; and Conservation of Rice and Biofertilizer Genetic Resources - on the output (relevance) axis. The discipline-based divisions along the input axis are formally Social Sciences, Plant Breeding, Genetics & Biochemistry, Agronomy, Physiology & Agroecology, Soil & Water Sciences, Entomology & Plant Pathology, but operationally include the Genetic Resources "Division". These operational changes have been discussed in Section 7.2.
The main actors in the matrix are the Programme Leaders, Division Heads, Project Team Leaders and Project Coordinators. Implementing research is a responsibility shared between Internationally Recruited Staff (IRS), Affiliate Scientists (AS), Project Scientists (PS), Nationally Recruited Staff (NRS), and partners. On average, each IRS and AP position has one additional PS and the support often research and field assistants, and 0.5 office staff to implement, in the current plan, 23 projects with 79 identifiable outputs.
IRRI recognizes that to maximize the benefits of working in the matrix mode it has to focus on setting practical targets, ensuring focus, acknowledging achievements (contributions to science, to impact, to team, to NARS), removing obstacles, and providing rewards. The Panel learned that some scientists were satisfied with the matrix system as it provided transparency, direct control of budgets, reduced paperwork, fostered participatory decisions and interdisciplinary team building. While by and large the matrix system is working, the Panel would have expected that given the gestation period of seven years, it would have been customized to IRRI's needs and working smoothly. This does not appear to be the case. Some of the criticisms made to the previous panel in 1992 were still repeated by other staff. Transaction time, management time at the expense of research, report-writing time, slow financial reporting, conflicts due to skills availability versus demand, and constraint on innovation, were among the criticisms.
These conflicting views are not unusual in matrix management where there are dual lines of authority and responsibility. The single, most important issue, in the Panel's opinion, is transaction time. To minimize transaction time, authority should be properly delegated down the line in a transparent manner. It should be clear where a given decision is to be made and Management, particularly, should adhere to this. It also means that chairs of all committees, task forces, and project teams, ensure that there is an agenda and timetable for meetings, with stated objectives, and make sure that these objectives are understood and attained. Where there is a premium on time, invitees to meetings should be limited to those who can contribute to attaining the objectives of the meeting, on a "need-to-know" versus a "nice-to-know" basis.
The staff of Finance and Administration can play their part in achieving greater administrative efficiency by understanding that they have a facilitating role (as opposed to a policing role) to enable the objectives of the Institute to be met; and they are as much a part of the research team as the scientists. The fostering of such an attitude may require the constituting of joint teams - research, finance and administration staff- to identify bottlenecks and find solutions with the theme that the business of IRRI is research.
The Panel was pleased to note that a Quality Assurance (QA) initiative, originating in 1993 as an integral part of an EPA project, is now being propagated as a requirement for all projects, driven by the enthusiasm of NRS (who find QA an excellent discipline for improving quality, morale, and continuity). IRS, on the other hand, have apparently been reluctant to adopt the QA discipline. They cite concerns over autonomy, privacy of data, and lack of funds earmarked for QA. The Panel understood that these concerns are being addressed, but wishes strongly to support the use of the QA discipline. The application of a QA discipline to research will prevent the "drift" of techniques when each scientist can alter them. Particularly in a matrix mode of operation, the Panel feels that the use of standard operating practices (SOPs), experimental designs, control charts, and quality reporting and publishing, will go a long way in eliminating inefficiencies.
Assessment
The Panel is of the opinion that the matrix system is still not functioning smoothly. This must be an impediment to the efficient conduct of research and its delivery. The Panel learned that many decisions require processing through several layers before decisions are taken. The DDG Research has been in a difficult situation - he has been handicapped because senior management did not function as an effective team, as lines of authority were not always respected; and overloaded, because of insufficient delegation to programme and project team leaders and division heads, who should be responsible for managing their staff, and budgets. The Panel believes that lines of authority should be made explicit to all staff in the matrix and that the additional managerial responsibilities (and accountabilities) carried by project team leaders should be appropriately rewarded.
The Panel recommends that a review be undertaken of management methods, including rewards for carrying managerial responsibility within the matrix; the efficient conduct of meetings; streamlining the interface between research, finance and administration; and appropriate delegation. This initiative must be seen to have the full commitment of the senior management team.
7.5.1 Overview
7.5.2 International Programmes Management Office
7.5.3 Institutional Relationships
7.5.4 Public Awareness
IRRI had three relevant units - International Programmes Management Office (IPMO); Liaison, Coordination, and Planning Unit (LCP); and Public Awareness (PA) - until 1997.
The IPMO coordinated international programmes under the DDG for International Services, and the LCP and PA units assisted the DG in fostering good institutional relationships, particularly with donors. The DDG International Services was more directly involved in maintaining good relationships with the host country and NARS.
With the retirement of the DDG for International Services and the Head of the LCP unit, the three units were brought under a new Directorate, External Operations, in early 1997, reporting directly to the DG. The only other change was to transfer, out of the LCP, the Board Secretariat responsibilities from the LCP to the legal office (under the attorney), and the programme planning activities to the DDG Research. The remaining liaison activities and activities associated with donor relations are now part of External Operations.
The IPMO's role is to coordinate and facilitate the planning and implementation of all cooperative and collaborative programmes, provide support to outposted staff and nationally recruited Liaison Scientists (LS) in regional and country programmes, assist NARS in the design, appraisal, and review of bilateral country projects (including fund sourcing from donors), and oversee the recruitment and outposting of scientists to country projects and liaison offices. Partnerships depend on the strength of the NARS, and are continuously evolving (see Section 3.5)
The IPMO oversees these partnerships through either LS located in a country, or IRS scientist(s) doing on-site research and institutional strengthening. LS are placed in strong NARS and outposted IRS are usually in the less developed NARS. At present, there are four LS (India, China, Indonesia, Myanmar), and 11 IRS in four other countries with an evolution towards the LS model.
Funding in IPMO is under the "Strengthening International Partnerships" Programme in the 1994-1998 MTP, and is now under "Accelerating Impact (IM 1)" in the new MTP. Country-specific projects, such as those in Cambodia, Laos, and Madagascar, are fully funded through special project funds with full overhead recovery.
Assessment
The IPMO is a pro-active node in the flow of research from and to IRRI, which links strategic to applied to adaptive. This pivotal unit helps fulfil the objective of institutional strengthening. Considering that NARS are the prime part of IRRI's institutional portfolio and its main partners, this office fulfils a key function. The Panel's assessment of NARS partnerships (Section 3.5.3), showed how well these partnerships are functioning and, therefore, the Panel finds the work in this office commendable.
The main relationships are with: the host country; donor agencies; NGOs; and the Asia Rice Foundation. Host country relationships are principally with the Government, UPLB, Department of Science and Technology, Phil Rice, Department of Agriculture, NGOs, the media, and the local community.
The Government. The Panel was informed by Management that IRRI enjoys full support from relevant agencies of the Government. In April 1996, a small labour group sought recognition through the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Senate, and the House of Representatives for its right to represent labour at IRRI. An earlier Supreme Court decision had supported and upheld IRRI's labour relations structures, i.e., the Council of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM), to represent labour at IRRI. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) which oversees all international organizations in the Philippines, as well as DOLE, have supported IRRI in the ongoing labour issue. However, the Panel has been told that in some parts of the Philippine Government there is a degree of support for the labour group at IRRI.
Department of Science and Technology (DOST); Department of Agriculture. The Panel found that IRRI has worked closely with DOST to update the guidelines for the release of transgenic material for field testing. This is a follow-up to the initiative taken in 1989, when in collaboration with UPLB and the Department of Agriculture, the current guidelines were formulated jointly and adopted by the authorities.
The University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB). As landlord, neighbour, and academic institution, UPLB has many relationships with IRRI. Since 1961, UPLB has made lands available to IRRI for all its needs, including housing, on a long-term lease at nominal rates. UPLB has extended appointments to IRRI senior staff as affiliate members of the Graduate Faculty of UPLB, and accepted qualified graduate students nominated by IRRI. In turn, IRRI has provided IRRI senior staff members to serve as adjunct members of the faculty, and provided student assistantships to UPLB undergraduates and graduate students. IRRI has offered post-doctoral fellowships to UPLB faculty members. There is also a memorandum of understanding covering collaborative research and administrative affairs. A tripartite partnership involving PhilRice-UPLB-IRRI, for collaborative research and training, was launched in 1995. A joint UPLB-IRRI Committee on Administration meets regularly to discuss mutual assistance and cooperation. There is an annual sports day to foster contact between the staffs of IRRI and UPLB.
The above is an indication of the IRRI and UPLB interactions, and the Panel learned from UPLB that there are other promising areas where initiatives can be taken to strengthen the existing bonds.
PhilRice. PhilRice has excellent facilities for almost all aspects of rice research, and many of its staff have worked or were trained at IRRI. IRRI-PhilRice collaboration takes many forms. Phil Rice is a member of the Irrigated Rice Consortium, the Rainfed Lowland and Upland Rice Consortium, and the Ecoregional Initiative, and a key collaborating centre in the IPM network, the ARBN, INGER, and CREMNET. Other collaborative activities include technology transfer, communications, training, and seed production. PhilRice staff value peer relationships with IRRI staff and programmes and the opportunity to be part of wide research activities in rice both in and outside the Philippines, but suggested to the Panel some areas for improvement, including joint authorship of papers.
Donors. A key institutional relationship is with donors. Keeping them informed of the work and impact of IRRI helps to interest donors in funding future work. The two main CGIAR annual events, the Mid-Term Meeting and International Centres Week, are the main arenas for such efforts. Donor relations staff try to match donor interests and funding prospects to specific NARS needs. IRRI also maintains close contact with embassies in Manila and the ADB, and keeps them informed on a regular basis.
NGOs. There are two types of NGOs with which IRRI apparently must deal: advocacy and rural development groups. IRRI policy adopted for the former is to keep an open door for constructive dialogue. With rural development groups, IRRI considers that their interests can be complementary. A joint project with PhilRice and an NGO to introduce salt-tolerant material into coastal areas provided an example. Other promising avenues that IRRI plans to explore are linking its research to priority-setting processes of NGOs in partnerships to evaluate new technology.
Asia Rice Foundation. IRRI helped prepare the initial concepts and ideas for a foundation to support rice research. The Rockefeller Foundation was interested in exploring the feasibility of an Asia Rice Foundation and has a feasibility study underway. The Panel was informed that the aim is to create an endowment fund for rice research in Asia available to all rice and rice-related research organizations. The programme is in its infancy, and has attracted modest support from at least one ASEAN country at this time.
Local Community. Relationships with the local community are harmonious and IRRI's assistance in, e.g., fire-fighting and sponsorship of community events, keeps the relationship healthy.
Assessment
Government. The Panel believes that relations may have suffered from poor communication at an earlier stage, but the Panel has been assured that such problems will have been corrected.
Departments. The Panel was pleased to note the cooperative, proactive, and productive relationship with the Department of Science and Technology. The good relations that exist were confirmed by the Under Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, whom the Panel visited.
UPLB. The many channels for interaction with UPLB have produced mutually beneficial results, which were confirmed by the Chancellor, who suggested to the Panel more areas for fruitful collaboration.
PhilRice. The Panel considered the IRRI-PhilRice relationship strong and still evolving. The Panel strongly endorsed the annual tripartite planning meetings (with UPLB) as a forum to plan collaborative research and other activities and to resolve matters needing special attention.
Donors. The Panel believes that IRRI's donor relation efforts are essential and are reflected in the continuing support received. The Panel commends IRRI on its professional approach to fund raising.
NGOs. The Panel was pleased with the collaborative attitude adopted by IRRI towards NGOs and believes that this is conducive to productive partnerships.
The Media. IRRI makes special efforts to keep the media - local and international -informed of its work. This has resulted in published articles favorable to IRRI appearing in leading journals and newspapers, and IRRI believes that these provide a healthy balance to articles by advocacy groups who question the role of international agricultural research.
The Public Awareness unit is the communications arm of the External Operations Office. Its mission is to ensure that IRRI stakeholders are kept informed; these include donors, potential donors, the host government, the public, client-country governments, NARS, and staff. The PA unit tailors information to the specific interests of these target groups through a broad range of high-quality publications. Close contact with the PA units of donor agencies, e.g., DANIDA, DFID, BMZ, helps to pinpoint donors' particular interests. Section 5.2.6 -Information Centre - summarizes the activities in the public awareness field.
Assessment
The Panel was pleased to note the attention paid to public awareness activities and the good response by the national and international media. The Panel understood that Management wished to assure itself that the current effort and direction were appropriate, and to this end a public awareness consultant will review this area in 1998. The Panel supports this initiative.
