7.1 Overview
7.2 Relations with National Institutions
7.3 CGIAR Centres and Other International Organizations
7.4 Advanced Institutions
7.5 Donor Relations
7.6 Conclusions
A collaborative approach to improving irrigated agriculture is clearly needed as IIMI cannot do all that is needed in this area itself. More important, the process of getting improvements accepted and instituted requires involving a wide variety of persons, especially in developing countries, in rethinking practices, technologies, criteria, incentives and goals. This calls for a strategy for engaging appropriate persons and institutions in collaborative efforts, as suggested in Chapter 3 with regard to research and also in Chapter 4 on institutional strengthening.
IIMI is refocusing its efforts from irrigation and irrigation system management to deal with irrigated agriculture, and this requires stronger linkages to agricultural research and development institutions than before. IIMI cannot increase staff extensively in the agricultural sciences, which means that given its mission and resource limitations within the CGIAR system, it must work more effectively with other CGIAR Centres. TAC's nomination of IIMI to coordinate a system-wide initiative on water management research makes developing such linkages more urgent.
IIMI's most important relationships, given its mission, are with a variety of institutions in developing countries, such as irrigation agencies, departments of agriculture, research institutes, universities, NGOs, and water user associations. Strategically, IIMI aims to improve irrigated agriculture by working with national-level institutions that can increase water use efficiency, raise agricultural productivity, preserve natural resources, and alleviate poverty. Work on irrigation management requires working with functioning institutions in real-world settings, so IIMI's association with cooperating national institutions is not an attempt to move into adaptive research, but is intended to where appropriate knowledge can best be generated.
The Panel's country visits indicated to members that overall IIMI has established good working relations with a number of key national institutions wherever it has a programme. IIMI staff are to be commended for having built a sense of partnership with many collaborators. However, we noted some areas in various countries where problems should be addressed or anticipated.
The Role of Consultative Committees. These have been established for most country programmes, and their members are normally appointed by the Government of the country. For the most part. Consultative Committees (CCs) are made up of prominent and knowledgeable persons who understand IIMI's mission, so that the Committees are a valuable source of ideas and support for an expanded and improved programme. Sometimes the Panel heard members expressing a feeling that their views are not solicited as frequently or as fully as they would like. The most extensive CC participation appears to be, not surprisingly, in Sri Lanka, though there was confusion about whether CC members here would make inputs to IIMI's programme generally or just to the Sri Lanka programme.
Some CC members are ex-officio and may show less continuity and interest than desirable. The Panel recognizes that all major actors in the irrigated agriculture sector (and in research on this sector) need to be represented. But to operate successfully, a CC needs to have at least a core of well-connected, knowledgeable, committed and continuing members. This means that the majority of members should have substantive concerns and not serve simply ex-officio. Given their interests and their institutional roles, CC members may not always attach much importance to generic research, stressing instead short-term action and policy needs.
IIMI needs to balance these expectations and demands, being sufficiently responsive to identified national and local issues while maintaining a broader comparative perspective on its mission. CCs offer an important "reality check" on IIMI's programme. Their support is essential for mobilizing financial support for country programmes, but they should do more than just endorsing proposals for IIMI activity. The Panel suggests that country programme heads and CC members reach a consensus on what contributions the latter can and should make. Where a country programme head has close relations with a broad-based and active CC, the chances of IIMI having visible impacts in a country are greatly increased.
Linking Agriculture and Irrigation. In some of their country visits, Panel members found somewhat less than full cooperation between departments of agriculture and those of irrigation. Where IIMI started its programme in a country by working with one agency, this seemed to make the other less interested in supporting IIMI's work. It has been hard for IIMI to become engaged equally with both agriculture and irrigation agencies, even though that is what its mission requires. The distance between these agencies is one of the realities of life, and it is often necessary to work also with the planning ministry as a third party concerned with irrigation research and policy reform.
Recognizing these tensions, IIMI has to find ways to establish a broad agency base of cooperation wherever it works. This is all the more important as IIMI begins to work more on upstream and downstream issues, such as watershed management or the maintenance of water quality, making linkages with departments like environment or health also relevant. Cooperating with other CGIAR Centres like IRRI or IFPRI can help in this as they have complementary linkages with government departments other than irrigation, the agency with which IIMI tends to have the closest connections.
Funding Country Programmes. It is encouraging that occasionally country programmes are funded from project loans from donor agencies to the national government, thus increasing the total pool for research, but the Panel has observed a certain unhappiness that IIMI is there operating not with its own funds but with government funding. Especially when IIMI is mostly doing research, this creates some resentment, unless the research is regarded as meeting government needs.
As donor agency funds become scarcer, IIMI may face increasing difficulty in getting cooperating governments to channel donor assistance to support IIMI research. Governments would like IIMI to bring its own funds, which is often an unrealistic expectation. This will make it more difficult for IIMI to launch country or cross-country research initiatives solely to meet its own priorities. Where IIMI's agenda is similar to that of senior officials, as in Pakistan, this problem should not arise. Difficulties in getting host governments to agree to IIMI getting project loan funds are increased because IIMI's overhead rate is considered high.
Possible Competition with National Capabilities. Achieving IIMI's second goal can be impeded when an IIMI programme in a country becomes an alternative, and thus a competitor, to national institutions for giving advice and undertaking research on irrigation management. This is not intended, but can result unless IIMI's programme is thoroughly collaborative with national professionals and institutions, so that governments look to IIMI and its partners together rather than to IIMI instead of its partners.
IIMI must be careful not to drain off top national talent. Recruiting such persons may appear justified by IIMI's need for 'top class personnel', especially if they cannot be very productive in their present institutions. Getting professionals on secondment, where they can enjoy the intellectual stimulation and opportunities of association with IIMI, but where they expect to return to their original institutional base, is a very attractive option, if it can be arranged.
The Panel cannot offer any general advice on this matter, but we are concerned that IIMI should not achieve short-term successes for its own programme at the expense of long-term development of national capabilities. We stress therefore the need for IIMI to consider long-term human resource development as part of its programmes for research and institutional strengthening.
Linkages with Universities. IIMI activities have had input from university staff in most of the countries where it has programmes, though only in the Philippines and India did we find very explicit efforts to involve and strengthen universities as part of meeting IIMI's second objective. While most universities in developing countries have definite weaknesses, these need to be redressed to build up national capacities for irrigation management research. This presents a dilemma because IIMI needs to be producing first-rate research at the same time that it improves the capabilities of national researchers.
Since universities are training most of the next generation of leaders in the engineering, economics, agronomy and other fields that will contribute to irrigated agriculture, it is important for IIMI to help make what is taught as current and relevant as possible. Some tradeoff can be accepted in terms of increased cost and possible delays in completing research in order to improve experience and skill of national counterparts. But IIMI cannot accept poor final research outputs, and must take steps when working with counterparts to ensure that the quality of its work remains high.
Survey Results. A survey was conducted by the TAC Secretariat of over 300 individuals in various institutions in South and Southeast Asia, West Asia and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America in connection with this review (see Appendix IV). As noted in Chapter 3, the response rate (14%) was low, but not unusually so for a mailed questionnaire. Respondents were not very impressed with IIMI's research to date, assessing it on average as "moderately valuable" - 3.0 on a 5-point scale. The presentation of materials was generally considered quite good but the quality was regarded as uneven, reflecting the lack of quality control discussed previously in this report.
More enthusiasm was expressed for the areas IIMI has focused on in its Medium-Term Plan as directions for future research (see Chapter 3). Respondents considered these subjects on average "very important" - 3.7. The comments of respondents, giving qualitative feedback, were mostly quite positive, as can be seen in Appendix IV. Not surprisingly, those who have had more involvement with IIMI's programmes regarded IIMI's past and projected work more favourably. The results of the survey supported the observations of Panel members during country visits that IIMI enjoys a great amount of good will within the national institutions it needs to work with.
The development of IIMI relationships with other CGIAR Centres is gaining momentum after a slow start, especially as arrangements for regional cooperation are being worked out. The new IIMI programme in Latin America is being given administrative support in Mexico by CIMMYT, and CIAT has offered to host an IIMI office for work in Colombia. CIAT welcomes IIMI participation in the hillsides agroecosystems consortium that it heads, encouraging joint research on institutional development (participatory organization of watershed and irrigation system users, which IIMI is involved with in Sri Lanka), strategic research (on economic and ecological impacts of irrigation in changing hillside land use patterns), and on plant-soil-water relationships. CIP is also interested in IIMI working with its consortium that seeks to improve sustainable production in Andean hillside regions (where irrigation is often an important factor). Whether IIMI has or will have the staff to follow up on these opportunities is quite uncertain.
ICRISAT and IIMI have already established a collaborative arrangement whereby the IIMI staff member who has been working in Nigeria is based at ICRISAT's office in Kano, enjoying the same logistical support, privileges and immunities as its own staff have, with IIMI reimbursing ICRISAT for all costs related to the IIMI programme in that country. This is an example of how overhead costs can be saved with advantages to both centres. ICRISAT and IIMI have discussed collaboration also in Asia but this has not proceeded very far.
ICARDA and IIMI have worked out a specific understanding of how their respective research programmes should complement each other. ICARDA focuses on the efficient use of irrigation water at the farm level, on producing germplasm that is efficient in its water use and tolerant to saline conditions, and on cultural practices that conserve water in the soil. IIMI, on the other hand, deals with assessing and improving the performance of whole irrigation systems, seeking to improve the management of water distribution and delivery to the farm. Both centres are concerned with increasing crop returns per unit of water rather than area cultivated. IIMI and ICARDA are presently considering cooperation in work on regional farming systems in the Nile Valley of Egypt, to take more than an on-farm water management perspective.
WARDA and IIMI have agreed to consider joint action under the proposed inter-centre initiative on water management in West Africa, envisaged to start in 1995. Both would be founding members of a consortium to implement this programme, with IIMI posting a staff member as part of WARDA's Sahel programme. This appears to be a low-cost way for IIMI to maintain some kind of programme in West Africa even if its country programmes in the region, which the Panel had reservations about, are discontinued after present funding expires. WARDA is considering a proposal to participate in a consortium programme with IITA for sustainable use of inland valley agroecosy stems in sub-Saharan Africa. In the past, IIMI and IITA have had very limited cooperation.
IIMI has yet to become involved with the IRRI-CIMMYT joint programme on rice-wheat farming systems in Asia, though clearly irrigation management has a great bearing on the performance and sustainability of these systems. All three centres express interest in working together on this, but so far IRRI and CIMMYT have proceeded to work with NARS in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, but without IIMI input.
IRRI and IIMI cooperated between 1987 and 1991 in a Rockefeller Foundation-funded collaborative research project on Irrigation Management Options for Rice-Based Farming Systems, with field studies conducted in Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines. IRRI and IIMI are cooperating in a training programme with the Kasetsart University of Thailand on irrigation water management during 1994, with the initiative coming from IRRI. The Panel would have hoped IIMI could play a more active role in this.
IFPRI and IIMI signed an open-ended MOU in 1989, which provided, among other things for a jointly appointed staff member who worked on irrigation sector and management policy. Complementary interests and capabilities have been identified, though the Panel can see potential overlap and conflict in the area of local management of irrigation systems and irrigation sector policy issues (water rights and common property management). The two institutes are currently consulting on how to proceed in ways that are mutually and jointly productive. It is important that IIMI and IFPRI work out a clear division of labour.
ISNAR and IIMI have had a number of discussions about collaborative opportunities, especially in the area of impact assessment of institution building activities and training methodologies. These two centres are often regarded as similar because they are subject matter rather than factor or commodity oriented. ISNAR and IIMI agree that their respective assignments to improve the management of agricultural research and the management of irrigation systems have quite different objectives, though there can be cooperation on common methodologies and techniques for institutional strengthening. They have some overlap in that one of IIMI's goals is to strengthen national research capabilities for irrigation management research.
CIFOR, ICRAF and ICLARM see potentials for collaboration with IIMI, but no formal collaboration has been worked out.
IBSRAM, the International Board for Soil Research and Management, based in Thailand, which is concerned with soil management in the tropics is not a CGIAR-supported centre but it is similar enough for us to consider it in this section, because its mandate can intersect with IIMI's where soil and water meet. Its 1990 initiative on management of lowland clay soils for upland crops after rice involved IRRI as well as IIMI. This never got funded and has lapsed, but IBSRAM continues to express interest in working with IIMI on soil-water management problems of mutual interest.
ICIMOD, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, headquartered in Kathmandu, is working on integrated agriculture in the greater Himalayan region, since irrigation on these hillsides and valleys is critical for food security. ICIMOD has cooperated informally with IIMI/Nepal in its work on hill irrigation and FMIS. Especially as the CGIAR system takes an agroecosystem approach, more interaction with ICIMOD may be useful. ICIMOD has recently broadened its geographic mandate to cover also the Andean region, where it has been suggested that IIMI should become involved with the CGIAR consortium led by CIP. This will require analysis and evaluation of irrigation management under hillside conditions that are different from most places where IIMI works.
There appears to be considerable willingness among most of IIMI's sister CGIAR institutions to work with it. A tendency often noted among CGIAR Centres is to focus on their own programmes, seeking recognition of their unique accomplishments while endorsing collaboration in principle, but this seems to be muted. Perhaps this is a response to the need for centres to find partnerships to maintain their levels of programme activity in the face of financial strictures. Whatever the reason, IIMI appears to face a welcoming world within the CGIAR system. Whether it will take advantage of these opportunities remains to be seen. So far, IIMI has not gone far beyond the MOU stage in negotiating joint programmes. The staff appointment funded jointly with IFPRI, mentioned above, is one specific case of cooperation.
There can be a contradiction between the CGIAR/TAC current emphasis on both planning and cooperation because Centres always have a complex collaboration/competition relationship. Centres are required to formulate carefully planned and detailed programmes so that they can be held accountable for achieving their own stated goals. At the same time they are expected to collaborate with other centres. When one centre could help another achieve its goals, there is little incentive to do so unless the second centre could be equally helpful for the first to achieve its goals. This incentive situation reinforces centres' disposition to be preoccupied with their own programmes. The CGIAR and TAC may need to use financial incentives to get cooperation where they judge this necessary for attaining overall CGIAR objectives.
Systemwide Programme on Water Management Research. TAC has proposed this new programme, nominating IIMI to be the convening centre. It is expected to facilitate cooperation with and among other centres such as IFPRI, ICARDA, WARDA and CIMMYT. The programme has already been provisionally allocated a budget by the CGIAR which by 1998 should reach US$ 1 million (in 1992 values). The programme would focus on efficient use of increasingly scarce irrigation water for crop production, as well as on resource degradation issues such as salinization and waterlogging. The initiative would treat water resource management in a comprehensive sense, relating environmental and health issues to the planning and assessment of water management. A Systemwide programme would consider the effects on irrigation of upstream watershed management, which could involve ICRAF and CIFOR, as well as the effects downstream of water management practices and the use of agrochemicals. These practices affect soil and water quality and aquatic resources, for example, which are of concern to IBSRAM and ICLARM within the CGIAR. Since they also affect human health, this would require bringing in agencies that are outside the CGIAR system like WHO, IUCN and UNEP.
The Panel endorses this proposal and believes it is valuable for IIMI to have been given responsibility for initiating work in this broad area. There are important issues to be dealt with in a collaborative research programme on water management (more than irrigation management): conservation and protection of groundwater, safeguarding domestic water supplies and improving sanitation (which are issues particularly affecting women), impacts of hydropower generation and other non-irrigation water uses, preserving environmental resources with water treated as one of several, common property management (which IFPRI is already working on including water), and public vs. private decision-making.
Because the scope of this proposal is very broad and complex, IIMI needs to undertake some serious initial discussions among its staff to begin framing the effort. IIMI's SCOR project in Sri Lanka is probably unique within the CGIAR System for addressing in an integrated and operational way a number of the issues relating to water and watershed management. SCOR can provide IIMI with more substantive knowledge and experience to contribute to this TAC initiative.
One of the themes which many CGIAR Centres are sounding is that they need to forge closer linkages with "centres of excellence" which are at the leading edge of technological and organizational development. IIMI is in a position where this is very important because its present and future staff capabilities are limited relative to the task it has.
The Panel was surprised that IIMI had not established more working relationships with universities in the more developed countries. Several of these have cooperated with IIMI in the past, but there is no evident strategy for benefiting from and contributing to the expertise that these institutions have. Alongside universities, particularly in Europe, there are a number of research institutions and professional organizations that should be associated with IIMI in an ongoing manner. These institutions, like universities, face severe financial constraints these days, so their involvement in IIMI programmes cannot be assumed to come "free." If certain collaborative possibilities are valuable for IIMI's programme, the Institute needs to be prepared to put some resources into following them up. If they are not useful, collaborative arrangements should not be entered into.
We are not issuing a broad call for "collaboration," knowing that it entails costs as well as benefits. As suggested in Chapter 4, IIMI needs to formulate selective and purposeful strategies for interaction with universities as well as other institutions in more developed countries. There needs to be clear agreement on the research agenda to be advanced, on the comparative advantage which each party brings to the agreement, on the benefits that each expects from the collaboration, and on the costs each is willing to bear. With appropriate planning and follow-up, IIMI can benefit greatly from such arrangements. As noted in Chapter 3, we had expected that IIMI would be taking more advantage of academic institutional linkages, for joint research projects, sabbatical leaves, visiting lecturers, graduate students, thesis research, and so forth.
IIMI already has a number of connections with professional and technical organizations concerned with irrigation, though few have been made very operational or beneficial. The premier association is with ICID, the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. This provides an excellent forum for discussing research results. Its Secretary General is in New Delhi which makes communication and visiting relatively easy. IIMI and ICID have had a MOU since 1988, and the ICID President has been an invited observer to IIMI Board meetings. Before a new MOU in 1993, contact between IIMI field staff and ICID national committees was very limited, but that is now being changed. The ICID-IIMI MOU identifies a number of areas of common interest: women in irrigation, farmer participation (IIMI will play a role in the 1996 ICID conference in Cairo highlighting this subject), management of change in irrigation agencies, management of financial resources for system sustainability, and irrigation strategies for river basins/watersheds. An ICID connection, especially if it brings national committees closer to IIMI country programmes and vice versa, is valuable.
There are various professional organizations for disciplines like economics and engineering with which IIMI staff should maintain contact in their roles as researchers rather than simply as representatives of IIMI. IIMI should encourage its staff to attend professional meetings. This is an important means for keeping IIMI staff aware of advances in the different disciplines, as noted in Chapter 3. No formal agreements are necessary for IIMI, as staff should keep up these connections in their personal and professional capacities.
There are several connections with institutions in Europe that are valuable to the extent that IIMI has the personnel to participate with them. ILRI, based in the Netherlands has long-standing linkages with IIMI. Several sister institutions are relevant to IIMI now: the Winand Staring Centre for Integrated Land, Soil and Water Research; the Institute for Soil Fertility Research; and the Institute for Forestry and Nature Research. These Dutch institutions are quite well disposed to work with IIMI and are already linked with the Land and Water Departments at Wageningen University, which has some informal association with IIMI.
Parallel to ILRI in the United Kingdom is HR (Hydraulic Research) Wallingford, particularly its Overseas Development Unit formed in 1973. This institute has fairly regular interaction with IIMI and has sponsored some joint activities in Sri Lanka, most recently a workshop organized with IIMI/Pakistan in Lahore on "Canal Seepage and Lining." This particular example is important because Wallingford's professional standing among engineers, especially British-trained ones, helped gain acceptance of IIMI's research findings on this controversial subject.
In Britain, the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) and CABI have cooperated with IIMI though there are no formal ties. NRI sponsors a Wetlands Action Group that is quite relevant to IIMI's concern with the environment and sustainability, working on the management of water regimes in wetland rice and the use of fish in rice fields and irrigation systems. IIMI has been using the data bases and technologies which CABI provides in support of agricultural research including research on irrigation and irrigated agriculture. This national institutions has strong capabilities in communication and information technology which IIMI could benefit from.
An active institution is CEMAGREF (Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts) in France, which has developed joint programmes with IIMI in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Morocco. It cooperates with CIRAD, the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, which has similar interests in irrigated agriculture, especially in Francophone West Africa. One of its researchers was recruited to represent IIMI in this region for four years, based in Burkina Faso. At present, a memorandum of agreement among IIMI, CIRAD, CEMAGREF, ORSTOM (Institut Français de Recherche Scientifique pour le Développement en Coopération) and INRA (Institut National des Recherches Agronomiques) is being planned to cover collaborative activities on a formalized basis. CIRAD has offered to cooperate with IIMI through CORAD, le Conférence des Responsables de la Recherche Agronomique Africains, which could be a vehicle for IIMI to further its second goal of building up national research capacity.
In parallel to connections established with institutes in Europe, IIMI has developed over the past years links with 8 US organizations. The nature of the collaboration is very variable and rarely long term; it ranges from collaboration in the organization of workshops to the realization of joint studies and research projects. The joint activities with Cornell University were the formulation of IIMI's research directions and priorities in 1985 and collaborative country specific field research, which was initiated in 1989. IIMI signed a collaborative agreement with Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development in 1990 to share experiences and to cope more efficiently with the research challenges in the field of irrigated agriculture. In 1990 IIMI started working with Sheladia Associates on the Irrigation System Management (ISM) project in Sri Lanka. With the USBR (United States Bureau of Reclamation) and the Washington State University a collaborative study was conducted on the irrigation management in the Columbia Basin Project. Similarly, IIMI was requested by ISPAN (Irrigation Support Project for Asia and the Near East) to undertake research for the Irrigation Management Policy Support Activity (IMPSA) in 1990/1991 in Sri Lanka. The cooperation with Indiana University consisted of the development of a database for the comparative study of irrigation organizations and methodology in Nepal in 1992, and the organization of a workshop in March 1993 in Nepal on "From Farmer Fields to data fields and back". Also in 1993, a cooperative study was initiated with the University of California at Davis on management performance of irrigation systems. With the CADSWES (Center for Advanced Decision Support in Water and Environmental Sciences of the University of Colorado) IIMI collaborated in the organization of two workshops in Peshawar and Lahore in April 1993, to demonstrate Decision Support Software for water resource management.
An additional category of institutions for possible collaboration in advanced countries includes consulting firms and engineering bureaus. Many of these have capabilities in irrigation technology, design and construction, but relatively little in irrigation management, operation and maintenance. IIMI would probably have an enthusiastic response if it offered training for the staff of these organizations in state-of-the-art approaches to irrigation management. Such firms are eagerly seeking contracts from donor agencies and national governments to implement projects that are increasingly focused on problems of management rather than construction. Relatively inexpensive diffusion of better ideas and practices could be possible through these private sector bodies.
UN agencies represent a special set of advanced institutions, being responsible to the whole world community for technical assistance and development. FAO has the largest involvement in irrigation management, taking programmatic initiatives through its Land and Water Development Division. FAO has been invited to attend IIMI Board and Programme Committee meetings as an official observer since its inception. FAO and IIMI are presently planning a jointly sponsored conference on irrigation management transfer to be held in China. Though both organizations maintain friendly relations, no major cooperation has resulted so far. Possibly FAO could take on the responsibility for publishing regularly worldwide statistics on irrigated agriculture, or help to draw international attention to issues and findings that IIMI would like emphasized. This requires ongoing communication with FAO (see annual IIMI/FAO/GTZ meetings) so that it can help to mobilize world opinion in support of irrigation improvement.
IPTRID's overall mandate is focused on the technological development of irrigation and its research thrusts are (i) modernization of irrigation systems, (ii) improving technologies for maintenance, and (iii) sustainable land and water use through drainage. IPTRID's programme on the modernization of irrigation systems is very much complementary to IIMI's Programme 5: Sustainable Management of Water Delivery and Disposal and the cross-cutting theme on Choice and Use of Technology. Further points of common research interest are related to waterlogging and salinization. However, the approach followed by both is different. Whereas IIMI is conducting its research close to the irrigation system, IPTRID establishes linkages with agencies involved in research so as to promote adaptive research and use the findings or methodologies. Over the past years several contacts have been established between IIMI and IPTRID, but so far these contacts have not resulted in a clear strategy for collaboration. Given the uncertain future of IPTRID further actions along this line might cease. The Panel believes that whatever the future of IPTRID, its experience can reinforce the technological dimension of IIMI's mandate.
This review of collaborative possibilities does not recommend any specific partnerships for IIMI. It indicates that there are attractive opportunities for IIMI to engage with experienced professionals in many fields supporting irrigation management and irrigated agriculture. As indicated for university cooperation, IIMI needs to have a clear idea of what it seeks to accomplish from any collaboration, with some analysis of expected benefits and costs and some expectation of what net benefits will be sufficient for the partners to keep up the relationship.
IIMI was quite literally a creation of the donor community, with the Ford Foundation giving the strongest support, that recognized that irrigation management represented one of the most promising areas to achieve gains in agricultural productivity. Donor support has continued to be strong, as IIMI's budget has continued to grow until this year. Its funding level has increased steadily from approximately US$ 2.0 million in 1985 to close to US$ 10.0 million in 1993.
One can see from Table 7.1 the amounts and relative shares of donor contributions to IIMI over the five-year period under consideration. From 1989 to 1993, total donor support increased by 68%. The top three donors, USAID, the Ford Foundation and the World Bank, increased their contributions by 20% in this period, but their share of the total fell from 59% to 42% because other donors raised their funding by 140% in just five years. Unrestricted funds in this time have gone up 92%, with their share of total funding rising from 29% to 34%.
Table 7.1 IIMI's Funding by Donor (US$)
|
Donor |
1989 |
|
USAID |
1,702,319 |
|
Ford Foundation |
1,174,204 |
|
World Bank |
618,700 |
|
Subtotal |
3,495,223 |
|
as % of Total |
59% |
|
ADB |
567,116 |
|
Rockefeller Foundation |
353,041 |
|
IFAD |
305,618 |
|
Netherlands |
271,797 |
|
Subtotal |
1,497,572 |
|
as % of Total |
25% |
|
Top 7 donors |
85% |
|
Top 10 donors |
95% |
|
Total |
5,883,543 |
|
Donor |
1993 |
|
USAID |
1,823,597 |
|
Ford Foundation |
1,360,400 |
|
World Bank |
1,000,000 |
|
Subtotal |
4,183,997 |
|
as % of Total |
42% |
|
Germany |
959,425 |
|
ADB |
904,839 |
|
Netherlands |
907,513 |
|
CEC |
749,000 |
|
Subtotal |
3,520,777 |
|
as % of Total |
36% |
|
Top 7 donors |
78% |
|
Top 10 donors |
93% |
|
Total |
9,888,974 |
Diversification of donor support is one of the noteworthy aspects of IIMI's institutional relations. The number of donors in this period rose from 13 to 20. This reflects effective efforts by IIMI management to mobilize funding, organized through its Office of Donor Relations and Project Development (PDO), and the continuing importance of irrigation management for agricultural and economic development worldwide. It also reflects a shift in donor thinking from funding new irrigation projects to favouring rehabilitation and improving O&M. IIMI has found a "niche" within the international development community, even within a more competitive environment. Its portfolio of funded projects now includes both larger grants and longer-term grants.
With current donors, the Director General and the head of PDO take the lead in nurturing relations, while trying to attract also new donors. Country programme heads are expected to interact with donors at the national level. This degree of decentralization, with country heads taking more initiative than in many other CGIAR Centres, represents a strength of IIMI.
The World Bank remains a supportive institution, appreciating the importance of IIMI's mandate. IIMI also has good relations with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), so that it has opportunities for support across the developing world.
The multilateral banks are not regarded by IIMI just as a source of funds, but as influential actors in the development arena. Their decisions affect national policies and practices to a considerable extent. Some recent decisions by the ADB to reshape its planned project in Pakistan to reflect the research findings of IIMI that physical lining of canals is less cost-effective for saving water and improving distribution than is selective desiltation, represents the kind of input to improve resource allocation decisions which IIMI is able to make. IIMI has made similar contributions to ADB and World Bank thinking in Nepal on the value of building farmer management into new or rehabilitated systems rather than superimpose new physical and management structures that ignore existing (though informal) organizational arrangements.
Because most of IIMI's work has been in Asia, its relations with the ADB are best developed, though it has support for its West African programmes from the AfDB. IIMI's new programme in Latin America is funded by the Ford Foundation, but it is anticipated that IDB will assist in its expansion. Clearly in the present funding climate for all development efforts, IIMI will need to continue making strong and effective efforts to maintain relations with multilateral and bilateral institutions. There should be opportunities to attract new donors including ones within the CGIAR that have not yet begun to fund IIMI work. A major challenge to IIMI in the coming years will be to design its long-term aims so that they are congruent with the donor needs.
Overall, IIMI has been quite successful in its external institutional relations. The Panel has no specific recommendations to make in this area, though we would highlight in conclusion some of the suggestions made above. It must be always remembered that collaboration has costs, not just benefits. Thus collaborative relations should be entered into only with considerable forethought. Criteria and expectations need to be established in advance so that activities are not guided by post hoc rationalization.
Since the benefits of collaboration usually come over time, with continuity, such relations should be planned and maintained for the long run. Short-run cooperation is always an option, if both parties understand it as such and distinguish it clearly from long-run collaboration. IIMI should aim to become the centre of a set of productive collaborative arrangements so that it is the institution to which others look for leadership in this area.
There are already more opportunities for IIMI to collaborate with national and international institutions than it can usefully take up. The Panel advises IIMI to be selective in its relationships so that these tie into and reinforce its programmatic themes. There can be some generalized relationships, as with ICID, which cut across theme areas. But IIMI needs to build up strength and productivity in its chosen areas, so collaboration should contribute to them.
IIMI has to make better use of outside expertise in universities, professional associations and other institutions. IIMI has been slow to do this, partly because of other priorities, and because developing meaningful relations requires time, effort and resources.
