TAC Commentary on the Third External Programme and Management Review of IFPRI
35. The report of the Third External Programme and Management Review of IFPRI was introduced by Dr. Samuel Paul, Panel Chair, who recalled that this was the first review since 1991 which had been conducted during a period of severe turmoil. Dr. Paul was pleased to inform the Committee of the Panel's conclusion that IFPRI had a very impressive record of high quality research, that there was a strong linkage with other CGIAR Centres and developing countries, and that the Institute was well managed. IFPRI had greatly expanded its financial and human resources and had successfully conducted its 2020 Vision exercise. The Institute had a credible priority-setting process and the original rationale behind IFPRI's creation was still valid. Governance and management of IFPRI were found be to very effective. The only area found to be in need of strengthening was that of outreach. IFPRI needed to develop an outreach strategy and a greater integration with research was found to be necessary. IFPRI faced substantial emerging challenges as it entered the next century but was well equipped to address them effectively. In concluding, Dr. Paul provided an overview of the Panel's recommendations and reiterated the positive nature of its findings.
36. The response of the Board and management was introduced by Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Director General. IFPRI had been very pleased with the report and had found it to be most helpful. The Institute agreed with the Panel's recommendations and had already started implementing some of them. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen argued that some of the Systemwide activities in which the Institute was involved should have more System level funding as they were of much broader interest than to IFPRI alone. The Institute had gone through a dramatic change during the last seven years and Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen believed that this had been well captured by the Panel in its excellent report. He also appreciated the very professional manner in which the review had been organized.
37. The discussion was introduced by Dr. Justin Lin who referred to the ongoing transformation of many countries from a socialist to a market economy. He wondered whether IFPRI should not give more attention to studying such transition economies, and their implications for poverty and malnutrition in particular.
38. Dr. Alain de Janvry who had chaired the Stripe Study on Policy and Management Research in the CGIAR and who had been a member of the two earlier EPMR panels commended Dr. Paul for an excellent report and the soundness of its recommendations. He encouraged readers not to limit their reading to the conclusions but to consider the whole report as it contained a powerful analysis. He also congratulated the Director General for a very impressive performance since taking office. Dr. de Janvry raised a number of issues that the Institute may wish to consider as it embarked on another round of priority setting. These included the degree of consistency in the performance of different divisions and that the lessons learned from these were gaps in research on institutional change, the potential role of IFPRI in IPR issues, the need for a more active involvement of IFPRI in policy debates, the public goods nature of IFPRI's work, the lack of progress in conceptualizing the outreach programmes and the existence of time famine among IFPRI scientists.
39. Other TAC Members joined in the discussion and highlighted the need for a strategy for IFPRI's outreach programmes. Concern was expressed about the skill mix of IFPRI staff which was predominantly composed of economists.
40. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen was grateful for the suggestions made in the discussion and indicated that serious consideration would be given to them when IFPRI prepared its next MTP. He expressed IFPRI's intention to do more on transitional economies, particularly in Central Asia. He noted, however, that while many people provided ideas on where IFPRI should do more, no suggestions had been forthcoming as to areas where IFPRI could reduce its efforts. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen pointed out that IFPRI was turning down a lot of requests for assistance because of lack of resources. He acknowledged that there was a very competitive structure at IFPRI which was unavoidable but which had positive implications. While he recognized that there was time famine at IFPRI, he also pointed out that this was common among good scientists in any research institute. He also made a careful distinction between outreach activities and the outreach division. He acknowledged that outreach would he the responsibility of every scientist and could not be isolated from research. Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen noted the need to maintain disciplinary strength, and reiterated the need for close collaboration to ensure critical mass.
41. In concluding the discussion, the TAC Chair expressed his gratitude to the Panel for an excellent report. After further consideration, TAC prepared the following commentary.
42. TAC is grateful to the Chair, Dr. Samuel Paul, and Members of the Panel that conducted the third EPMR of IFPRI, for an excellent report which contains a powerful analysis of IFPRI's programmes and management. The Committee is pleased about the very positive findings of the Review Panel and that the overall quality, outputs and performance of IFPRI during the period under review have been found to be impressive. Leadership of the Institute has done an outstanding job of restoring organizational cohesion, morale and stability after a period of internal turmoil and uncertainty at the time of the last EPMR.
43. The Committee notes that not all of the important considerations made in the analysis are fully reflected in the conclusions of the Panel and therefore encourages readers and IFPRI to consider the report in its entirety. TAC is pleased that the Panel conducted its Review against a background of the 1996 Strategic Study on Policy and Management Research in the CGIAR. TAC endorses the recommendations made by the External Review Panel and notes that the Institute also is in full agreement with all of them.
44. The Committee offers the following commentary, prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's report.
Strategy and Priorities
45. TAC is pleased with the Panel's findings that IFPRI's current mission and priorities are on the whole consistent with CGIAR goals and priorities, and that the research issues on its agenda and its major research outputs are pertinent to poverty alleviation, food security and environmental sustainability in the developing countries. The Committee agrees with the Panel that the priority setting process used for the 1998-2000 MTP is appropriate and pragmatic but that IFPRI should more fully exploit the means available to gain greater input in its priorities setting from developing country policy makers. TAC notes that IFPRI intends to interact during 1998 with stakeholders to identify major emerging policy issues as an input for a new round of priority setting. The results of this exercise will be reflected in IFPRI's subsequent medium-term plan. TAC expects IFPRI to give careful consideration both to the findings of the Panel and the Committee's commentary.
Programmes
46. TAC is pleased about the Panel's findings of the high quality and relevance of IFPRI's research programmes and the solid reputation IFPRI holds among its peers and collaborators.
47. In response to reading the Panel's report, TAC raises the following two general issues:
a) IFPRI bases much of its current work on multicountry analysis. Following this approach is clearly one of IFPRI's comparative advantages and it has proven highly beneficial. However, TAC wonders whether this approach needs to be so systematically pursued as it can lead to the over-dimensioning of projects and over-burdening of the scientists involved for sometimes only marginal additional information provided by increasing the number of countries and delays in completing the research. For each particular project, IFPRI may want to carefully consider whether reducing the number of countries, eventually down to one, would allow to make projects leaner and quicker, without necessarily compromising the international public goods character of the results obtained. It may also enhance the relevance of results for the particular country chosen and their use in policy making.b) IFPRI should consider mechanisms to enable it to become more actively involved in emerging policy debates given the long lag that currently exists between initiation of research and availability of results in its traditional research activities. On the basis of its research experience, the Institute should explore mechanisms to make its expertise available to illuminate options in major debates on important current policy issues, perhaps by organizing special task forces as one element of its Outreach Programme.
48. As it engages in a new round of priority setting, IFPRI may want to carefully consider the following suggestions for research. TAC does recognize that IFPRI already has more than a full agenda and that its staff justifiably claim to suffer from over-commitment and "time famine". Any addition to its research programme may, therefore, have to he accompanied by a corresponding reduction elsewhere.
· Research on agrarian institutions for the rural poor. The trend in reducing the role of the state, following structural adjustment and redefinition of the role of the public sector in transition economies, has left large institutional gaps in important areas such as credit, insurance, marketing, technical assistance, and contracts with agro-industries that seriously constrain the competitiveness of many smallholders. Research should be directed at identifying best institutional responses for specific settings to fill these gaps. For this purpose, the Institute may benefit from a greater emphasis on applications of the New Institutional Economics as was already recommended by the Stripe Review Panel.
· Research on new approaches to rural development. While IFPRI gives substantial emphasis to food nutrition and consumption issues at the household level, perhaps insufficient attention has been given to the implications of alternative income generation activities for poverty alleviation strategies. In particular, a major effort is required to systematically investigate the link between sources of growth and poverty reduction and their implications for the design of effective approaches to rural development consistent with the emerging roles of the globalized market, new forms of governance, organizations in civil society, and institutional circumstances.
· Research on intellectual property rights (IPR). Given recent major changes on the privatization of research results in biology, IFPRI could play a more important role in research on IPR so as to enable the international agricultural research community to develop more informed options for policy making on this subject.
· Research on low-income transitional economies. The transformation from socialist to market economies has led to considerable problems associated with food security in transition countries. IFPRI should consider a more in-depth involvement with policy research and advice on low-income transitional economies about how to institute a functioning market economy which allows for improvements in the welfare of the poor.
Outreach
49. TAC agrees with the Panel that, outside of its work on 2020 Vision, IFPRI needs to develop a better strategy for its Outreach Programme. It recalls that similar observations were made in the 1990 Review and in the 1992 Mid-Term Review. TAC considers that the IFPRI Outreach Programme still lacks an integrating philosophy and concurs with the Panel that the outreach function has to be well integrated with research with mutual reinforcements. Outreach should be the partial responsibility of every scientist, with senior scientists assuming a relatively larger role. The Committee also wonders about the extent to which outreach could perhaps be better facilitated if research were more country rather than only multicountry focused.
Quality of Science
50. TAC is impressed with the high quality of science at IFPRI and the high regard peers generally have for the Institute's work. The Committee is also very pleased that the Panel benefited from an Internally Commissioned External Review (ICER) of IFPRI's research methodology. TAC notes, however, that the Panel identified some degree of variation in the performance of IFPRI's different divisions. This is no doubt inevitable but IFPRI should make an attempt to learn positive lessons through systematic analysis of why some divisions are more successful than others.
51. The Committee endorses the Panel's recommendation that there is a need for IFPRI to amplify its skill mix by recruitment of persons with both research and policy experience. TAC is also concerned about the large predominance of economists among the Institute's staff. The Committee appreciates IFPRI's efforts to make up for this imbalance in skill mix through partnerships but encourages IFPRI to improve its internal skill mix, while maximizing complementarities and overlaps between disciplines.
Governance and Management
52. TAC endorses the Panel's view about the strong leadership of IFPRI and acknowledges the Director General's contributions to reshaping the Institute. The Committee is also pleased that governance in IFPRI is efficient and that the Board has responded positively to the Panel's recommendations and suggestions. TAC notes the Panel's suggestion that the Board increase the number of its meetings but suggests that the Institute carefully weigh the benefits and costs of following this suggestion.
