1. Introduction and Background
2. Scope and Organization of the Study
3. Public Policy and Public Management Research Linkages to Natural Resources Management Research
4. Focusing on the International Dimensions of Research
5. Ongoing CGIAR Public Policy, Public Management, and Institution Strengthening Research.
6. Implications for the Organization of the Study
ANNEX A
SDR/TAC:IAR/95/5
CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Sixty-Sixth Meeting, CIP Hqs., Lima (Peru), 13-24 March 1995
Proposal for a Framework for an Analysis of Strategic Issues
TAC SECRETARIAT
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
February 1995
DRAFT
20 February, 1995
This paper provides a basic framework and set of definitions for use by TAC and associated collaborators in carrying out the TAC-guided stripe study of public policy/management research and institution strengthening research and service. The focus is on strategic issues and priorities and roles for the CGIAR. The paper builds on TAC's rationale, purpose, and terms of reference for the study, and expands and clarifies them in an operational context.
For the purposes of this study, the three activities under focus are defined as follows:
Public policy research is distinguished here from the predominantly production economics research or socioeconomic analysis used in a complementary fashion to evaluate technical options developed by researchers. It also is distinguished from the socioeconomics research carried out by centres in relation to assessments of farm organization, structure, and operation. While public policy research may use the same microeconomics tools, and the results from the production economics work of centres, it is distinguished from the latter by being defined as research on the policy environments within -which the results of technical research and socioeconomics and production economics research from the centres and national research systems are applied. Included here is research that helps to define an appropriate agricultural and natural resources science policy for a country.Public management research involves research on management of agricultural and natural resources related activities by the public sector. (Public management and investment is one set of policy tools or mechanisms available for implementing policies, the others being fiscal mechanisms (incentives, taxes and equity related subsidies) and regulatory (legal) mechanisms.) Thus, in a sense, public management research is part of the broader portfolio of policy research undertaken in the System. Also included is organizational research related to the structure of national agricultural research systems (NARS).
Institution strengthening research and service relate to the System's activities aimed at strengthening national research systems (defined in the broadest sense). Central components of such work in the CGIAR relate to capacity building and provision of more efficient and effective tools for planning and management, and to delivery of research results and development of collaborative activities with NARS that help to build their research capacity. Advisory services also are included. A key in this work is the balance and linkages between research and service or strengthening activities.
The TAC study is being initiated for several reasons that are expanded on in what follows:
* There is a lack of clarity regarding the boundaries between socioeconomics research focused at the crop or farm level, public policy and management research, and institution strengthening research in the CGIAR System. Furthermore, we need to understand better how the three most effectively could be related in terms of organizational models and activities and in order to support and complement other research being undertaken by centres and their partners.* This lack of clarity means that centres often put forth as policy research work that actually is routine economic or behavioural analysis to support productivity enhancing or maintenance research programmes. The fuzzy boundaries between the three types of work often lead to confusion in terms of appropriate responsibilities and linkages -particularly with IFPRI and ISNAR, but also among other centres. Furthermore, better understanding of the boundaries is needed to improve the process of budget allocation for the activities. The stripe study will develop insights on the distinctions and the alternative ways in which the three might be more effectively implemented in the System, e.g., through forms of integration, inter-centre collaboration, and other forms of coordination. The study will explore the options and make recommendations.
* In the case of institution strengthening, there is the question of the extent to which the System should be involved in service activities related to institution strengthening. The debate over this question has preoccupied many in the System for a number of years. At the present time, the relevance and legitimacy of the service function is accepted, as indicated by programmes and funding in the System. Given this acceptance, there is the question of balance between research and service, and the question of how to separate the impacts of research in this area from results or outcomes of the service activities. The study will explore these questions.
* Public policy research appears in the medium-term plans (MTPs) of all but one centre, generally linked to an association with IFPRI, the main policy research institution in the CGIAR System. Yet, reciprocal mention of these other centres in many cases does not appear in the plans of IFPRI, since budgetary provisions do not exist for IFPRI's participation. The same is the case with the Systemwide initiatives and the ecoregional initiatives. IFPRI at latest count is "involved" in 12 of them. Some logical, effective means for organizing, coordinating and implementing public policy/management research in the System is needed. The study will explore the needs and alternative means.
2.1. Public Policy and Public Management Research
2.2. Institution Strengthening Research and Service
2.3. Proposed Organization of the Study
It is important to stress at the outset that the TAC study will not be a reassessment of priority topics for public policy, public management and institution strengthening research in the System. The results of the priority assessments done by IFPRI, ISNAR, IIMI, CIFOR and the other centres in the System within the context of strategic planning and development of medium-term plans are accepted and are being addressed by ongoing work as detailed in centre MTPs. (This does not mean that consultants' reports could not suggest changes in emphasis.)
The study will focus on alternative operational modalities for carrying out research in this area, including, for example, the establishment of a more formal Systemwide programme for policy and management research and one for institution strengthening research and service. It should be noted that while such programmes obviously would have focal points in IFPRI and ISNAR, the focus of the TAC study should be on the options for links with other centres and with the outside world. The centre-specific questions will be addressed by the separate EPMRs for ISNAR and IFPRI that will commence in 1996.
The study will not deal with production economics and socioeconomics research in the System. That activity properly belongs in the centre programmes as part of the evaluation activity associated with research on production systems and so forth. The study will, however, look at the boundaries between this type of research and public policy/management research (as defined above).
The various themes that might be covered in the study are many and varied. The questions being asked differ by subject matter. Thus, the study will involve two distinct, parallel assessments of a) public policy/management research, and b) institution strengthening research and service. Centres will have an opportunity to interact from an early stage with the consultants and TAC Members involved in this study. In what follows, we look separately at the scope and focus of each of these parallel assessments.
In the case of public policy and public management research, the scope of the study can be defined by a set of questions that the consultants and study team are being asked to address:
1. What is the overall status of public policy and public management research in the CGIAR related to the priority topics of interest to the System, as expressed in existing MTPs and the results of TAC priority setting activities? What research are others doing in the priority areas of interest?2. What is the System doing in the way of research in this area? How can the research needs best be met, and is there scope for a better organization of the CGIAR's efforts in this area of work?
3. Is there any evidence that public policy and public management research in the areas of interest have had positive impacts? What have been the successes?
4. Are some particular topics missing or under-represented in the System's overall portfolio?
5. What are the options for organizing, coordinating, and implementing public policy and public management research in the System (including consideration of the option of a more formal Systemwide initiative, such as in the case of genetic resources)?
In the case of institutional strengthening, including capacity building, the study will take an "outcomes" based approach, i.e., start with a set of desired outcomes (associated with CGIAR activity) and then work backwards to an assessment of the means - both research and service - for achieving those outcomes. Topics such as training and information services will be treated as inputs into capacity building rather than as topics to be investigated as "objectives" in the TAC study. Links - both existing and desirable - to others working in this area, including bilateral and multilateral technical assistance missions and national programmes, will be looked at, to the extent possible.
The main focus in the institution strengthening assessment is on a) the extent to which the CGIAR System should be involved in service functions, and b) the options for links between research and service functions, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of each option.
It should be noted that the CGIAR System has a clear commitment to the strengthening of NARS. There are many actors and activities that can contribute to such capacity building. The relevant question in this study is which activities are appropriate for the CGIAR (as compared to other actors involved in this activity).
The scope of this assessment can be defined by the following set of questions that the study team will be asked to address:
1. What should be the scope of CGIAR involvement in institution strengthening research and service? What is the current rationale in the System for such involvement (given the fact that it is in the System now)? What are the pros and cons of the different arguments for and against such involvement?2. What are the appropriate linkages between institution strengthening research and service, and to what extent are they from a practical point of view inseparable, as currently argued? (The main argument is that the research is done as support for the service activity.)
3. Is there reason to establish a more formal Systemwide initiative in this area, one that creates stronger linkages and lines of responsibility and decision making? What are the alternative organizational modalities that the System might try in this area?
In sum, the focus of the TAC study will be on what changes in research and of its organization are needed in the System. This study is not intended to be a review or critique of what currently is ongoing, but rather a strategic assessment of future options and needs in terms of new operational modalities within the System and with partners outside the System. (It is noted again that separate EPMRs of ISNAR and IFPRI will soon be undertaken and they will provide assessments of the performance and work of the two main centres in the System dealing with the topics being addressed in this stripe study.)
There is a parallel ongoing TAC assessment of select strategic issues related to natural resources management research in the system. The two studies are being linked, since many of the pressing policy and institutional issues of relevance to CGIAR policy and public management research are natural resources related. At this stage, linkages are being created by commissioning jointly for the two stripe studies a consultant's analysis of the CGIAR's role related to research on public policy and management issues associated with natural resources management.
Particular policy issues that are important to natural resources and watershed management include, for example, those related to:
· tenure and common property; including water rights issues;· providing incentives to pursue more sustainable practices (there almost always is a short-term cost involved in such practices);
· public goods, social benefits and externalities;
· organizational linkages and interactions (e.g., related to watershed management and irrigation systems that often depend on a number of different agencies, organizations, and user groups).
For all the themes discussed above, the CGIAR System should be doing research only in those areas in which it has a special advantage, i.e., ones that relate to the international character of its centres. More specifically, international research initiatives - including potential ones in public policy, public management, and institutional strengthening -should:
· Globalize methodologies used in local studies to ensure comparability of results across ecoregions, and for common themes or problems within ecosystems.· Involve locally relevant and responsive research within ecoregions (or watersheds), but with a global perspective to a) take advantage of economies of scale in research, b) maximize use of spillovers from research, c) reduce transactions costs in doing research, and d) allow efficient movement up the learning curve.
· Be multisectoral and multidisciplinary in nature and scope, recognizing the different sectors and disciplines dealt with across the CGIAR System in different centres. Thus, for example, the CGIAR Systemwide water research initiative (which includes policy as a major thrust) should be explicitly linked to ecoregional activities, to activities of crop, livestock, forestry, and fisheries centres, and to various policy-related research issues pursued by such centres as IFPRI and IIMI, e.g., in the area of water policy and common property resource management.
· Take advantage of complementary activities of different suppliers of research, both within and outside the CGIAR System.
Strategic international research generally should be process oriented, i.e., focused on researching the processes by which positive changes can be made, or negative ones avoided. We recognize that we need to introduce a dynamic dimension in order to address the issues associated with process oriented research.
In other words, international institutions have a special advantage in developing the research on processes for sustainable development, use and conservation of natural resources, and for designing technologies to create more sustainable development options under a wide variety of ecoregional conditions.
At the present time, much of the public policy and public management research in the CGIAR is focused on work in IFPRI, IIMI and CIFOR, although much of IIMI's work could be classified as lying somewhere between institution strengthening research and service and public management research. CIFOR and several other centres also look at their work as being to a great extent driven by policy research. ISNAR is the leading Institute for institution-strengthening research in the CGIAR. A more detailed discussion of current research and service work in the CGIAR System is provided in Annex I (to be attached later).
As mentioned, the study will involve two distinct assessments addressing two different sets of questions. The first deals with public policy and public management research. This assessment will be led by a TAC Member and at least four consultants will produce short, focused background papers for it. One (possibly two) will produce a paper on public policy research related to natural resources. The second deals with institution strengthening and the major themes of capacity building. This assessment will also be led by a TAC Member. A team of four consultants will prepare linked papers.
It is proposed that the study will be conducted in five phases as follows:
Phase 1 (December 1994 to February 1995): Completion of this draft framework paper covering background information and defining scope and proposed topics of the proposed study.Phase 2 (February to April 1995): Draft framework paper to be discussed by the Committee at TAC 66 and to be sent for comments to Centre Directors. Consultants to be recruited. The TAC Secretariat will prepare an overview paper cataloguing ongoing CGIAR research in the field of study.
Phase 3 (27-28 April 1995): Organization of workshop at ISNAR, The Hague to brief consultants on purpose of review and to provide overview of issues involved. Centres will be invited to participate in this workshop (or to make an input through a contributed paper) and to provide consultants with their centre's perspective.
Phase 4 (May to June 1995): Preparation of working papers on priority topics. Consultants to write synthesis papers constituting a "needs" assessment. Consultations in June on background papers. The consultations would consist of two parts: one to deal with public policy and public management research, and one to deal with institution strengthening research/services. Preparation of progress reports to TAC 67 in July 1995.
Phase 5 (July - September 1995): Finalization of the report, possibly involving another consultation.
