We are now at a new and extraordinary time in the history of the application of science to aid poverty alleviation via research on rice culture. If one were to describe the ideal scenario about what would be required to launch the most penetrating research programme for agricultural research on rice it would include:
skilled teams of social scientists, breeders, physiologists, pathologists, geneticists, biochemists, agronomists, hydrologists and systems modelers in institutions with critical mass and in mature networks to provide, via collaborations, understanding of needs, and the means of delivering and evaluating technologies on farms in a diversity of environments;
a huge, well curated collection of wild, land race and elite germplasm;
an experienced consortium of crop scientists that can evaluate germplasm and technologies in many different environments;
a complete reference sequence of the DNA of all the rice chromosomes;
a global framework of scientists eager to use their skills to enhance agricultural applications and consumer preferences;
other scientists, throughout the world, eager to know the results of the research and to use it as a model for their work on other plants and crop species;
ways of disseminating the information globally to almost all who can use the information;
many organizations and governments willing to fund the research; and
a cadre of young scientists inspired to study the crop and its applications for a variety of purposes and to build their careers on making discoveries.
This is what is now or could be available for rice, as never before, and it prompts and facilitates an evolution in rice research and consequently for IRRI. The Panel sees that in addition to the gradual progress that has been occurring over the years there have been some innovations over the past five years that have significantly altered the vision. The opportunity is extraordinary, exciting and should be grasped.
In relation to the requirements for the ideal scenario listed above, skilled teams of specialists do exist both at IRRI and in NARS and ARIs that provide critical mass and mature networks. IRRI is the organization with the best collection of curated germplasm and linked with experienced Consortia of crop scientists ready to exchange and evaluate germplasm. China, USA, EU, India, Japan, and others are spending relatively large sums of money to understand the biodiversity in rice and the function of genes in its chromosomes via association and linkage genetics using molecular biology. Rice is now prominent as a model plant on which to conduct research, and students all over the world are being inspired and funded to explore some of the basics of developmental biology in different environments using rice. IRRI, CIAT and WARDA and all the NARS in Asia and elsewhere have multidisciplinary teams, many of which are networked and working efficiently and collaboratively. Telecommunication developments now enable global dissemination of information. Although traditional donors have been less willing to fund rice based research compared with two and three decades ago, the new rice research is receiving funding from developed country, national science granting bodies.
All this has not come about by accident. It has come from sustained investments over decades, hard work and inspired leadership in many institutions but drawn together by a common science base. It is, therefore, more timely than ever for IRRI and the CGIAR to review how their specific missions to reduce poverty in the world can be achieved by inspiring and leveraging this extraordinary situation. IRRI and the CGIAR are extremely well placed to do this.
In reflecting on the potential of any scenario in research it is, of course, often impossible to anticipate the effects of major discoveries or changes in political and other factors. However, such factors will emerge over the next ten years. The discoveries over the past twenty years, which have introduced major changes in the way plant science relevant to IRRI is done, have not come from discoveries within plant science itself. The advances in biotechnology are all predicated on research discoveries from bacterial genetics and the entrepreneurial, venture backed biotechnology industries. The technology developments in sequencing the rice genome came from investments in electronics, chemistry and bioinformatics, driven by the financial base of medical research. In NRM, the transforming technologies have come from developments in remote sensing, applied mathematics and satellite technology developed for space research and defence industries, which have provided the tools for GPS (global positioning systems) and GIS (geographic information systems). One of the largest impacts has come from the development of high speed computers and the web, that have added much to the pace of research, global competitiveness and speed of dissemination. Because of this, it is always essential that IRRI and the CGIAR be alert to the breakthroughs that will change the prospective for improvement in rice agriculture. Failure to recognize these can greatly affect the comparative advantage and marginalize any strategy.
In painting an optimistic picture of the brave new world opened up by science, in particular by molecular genetics, the Panel would be remiss if it does not point out some downside to the story. What used to be largely open science has now many fences created by intellectual property rights of the private sector, and by the various new concepts introduced in the Convention on Biological Diversity (see Chapter 1). When transgenic technology creates new products, its application and adoption are restricted by biosafety concerns and regulations which can make costs high, even before the value of the gene is known. No doubt, governments introduce property rights and biosafety regulations for sound reasons, but for an institution like IRRI they are a problem that has to be tackled.
Conceptualizing the new environment with multiple actors, and IRRI’s role within it, would yield something like the top of Figure 8.1. The actors involved in rice research are many. There are NARS, including the extension, NGOs, the IARCs, the ARIs, and increasingly the private sector. IRRI is only one among these, even though it is the only one (other than WARDA) that works exclusively on rice. IRRI has to position itself among these other institutions, which could possibly compete with it if IRRI plays its cards wrongly, but may also cooperate to enhance IRRI’s output if IRRI proceeds sensitively.
Figure 8.1 - IRRI’s Role within the New Rice Environment
What are IRRI’s core assets and competencies which give IRRI a comparative advantage amongst these different actors? That core (also displayed in the bottom half of Figure 8.1) is the germplasm collection that IRRI holds, on trust, for the world. IRRI has the best curated collection of rice germplasm, including wild, land races and elite lines, the abilities to carry out field trials and the like to improve rice for various uses in diverse environments and, above all, a substantial and recognized history in multidisciplinary rice research and its use for alleviating poverty. It is located in Asia and IRRI staff can travel anywhere. It also has outreach staff and others who are based in carefully selected areas in Asia, and has a distinguished record in training people.
Associated with the germplasm is a corps of scientists, which IRRI has to ensure are of the highest calibre. The Panel finds that it has indeed little difficulty in recruiting such high calibre scientists, capable of scanning the latest developments in science and applying them to the problems of rice, and sometimes advancing the frontiers of science. They have credibility among the scientists of other institutions.
For it to be effective, IRRI has to leverage that core into a working model that will yield results by which it is to be judged. Since IRRI’s mission is to alleviate poverty, it has to have the means of delivering the results of its labours to have that impact, primarily through increasing farm productivity in two ecosystems labelled ‘favourable’ and ‘unfavourable’. In doing so, it not only uses its own resources, but pulls in resources from the other actors shown at the top of Figure 8.1, using four methods:
it facilitates interaction among actors, for example by making it easier for actors to exchange germplasm;
it integrates knowledge of rice science, and makes it available to actors;
it brokers relationships between the actors; for example, its scientists may bring together and help set up a collaboration between an ARI scientist and a NARS scientist; and
it initiates projects on rice science that would advance the science, as well as help it to fulfil its mission of poverty alleviation.
Finally, when applicable research results do appear, it has the mechanism to disseminate them through its consortia and networks. In addition, IRRI has a major training dimension.
This then is the milieu and the operational mode of IRRI. In this landscape, IRRI will not always be the party to find the answers, but will capitalize on its unusual institutional character to bring actors on the top of Figure 8.1 together. It can do this effectively, for aside from its command of rice science, it is - uniquely among the institutions conducting rice research in Asia - non-profit, apolitical and international. This status combines to give a special position of trust. The value of these should not be underestimated in a world in which nations seek to develop their economies competitively, and where there is increasing likelihood that what used to be considered international public goods (e.g. germplasm) will no longer be freely shared.
The comparative advantage that it has in this community of institutions working on rice science can be sustained if it demonstrates that it is:
(a) the highly respected source of knowledge for rice based systems and improved germplasm of proven value for defined environments and for human health, working with NARS and NGOs to make improvements locally in the quality of life for rice consumers anywhere and everywhere. IRRI would play a large role in ensuring the sharing of reliable knowledge, innovative technologies and communication networks between countries; and
(b) an international leader supplying information to all on rice germplasm, genetics and genomics and its intrinsic attributes for farmer, environment, and consumer, etc. via linked web based systems so that every scientist, graduate student, technician. etc. for the years to come, all over the world, will be inspired and empowered to contribute to rice knowledge using whatever funds are available, or can be raised, and the facilities of others.
It is often queried whether IRRI should position and equip itself to be an upstream or development Centre or a mix given the changing externalities and needs. This question seems wrongly conceived. IRRI does and should use and develop state-of-the-art upstream information and technology and make sure its carefully selected products and services are delivered downstream as efficiently and effectively as possible. At all steps it should collaborate with whoever, upstream or downstream, has the skills and comparative advantages to contribute to delivery of the selected products/services. IRRI should therefore be neither an upstream organization nor a development Institute. Advanced rice research is now being conducted at many top class institutions in all continents and IRRI’s major role should be to coordinate all the relevant information and see that it is made available to empower all via web based systems. There are hundreds of development institutions and IRRI would add little to these without its up-to-date links to the science base of rice. This is, in fact, the brokering function.
All these advantages taken together are likely to stay relevant over the coming decade if IRRI continues to receive strong support and it has the right vision, strategy and strong management. No other single rice based research organization has this complement of assets or overall strength. However, this could change and probably will; some of the richer Asian countries are seeking to become much more self-sufficient in rice agricultural research. On the other hand, they may make the transition to becoming influential donors within their own region. With web-based information systems and the much higher global interest in rice research, skills, experience and people are now very mobile.
Provided that IRRI remains vigilant in keeping its relevance and comparative advantage over the coming years, it is well positioned to sustain its two principal mandates:
poverty alleviation through rice- based research; and
conservation and curation of rice germplasm and dissemination of the associated information to the world.
The Panel’s vision for IRRI and its role in rice research assume no major restructuring of the CGIAR or severe funding changes. Our views are based on a US$30-35 million Centre, but one that is highly capable and competitive in the struggle for funds to alleviate poverty through the application of science. Resource constraint will therefore always be a fact of life, and perhaps this is as it should be, if IRRI is to be a tightly run organization.
If the resource constraint is to be respected, IRRI needs to be careful that its resource allocation ensures cost-effective use of research funds to reduce poverty. What then should be the balance between the resources devoted to the two sorts of environments, favourable and fragile, recognizing of course that the two overlap and that breakthroughs for one environment will often be applicable or relevant in the other?
In attempting to answer this difficult question, the Panel starts with two objectives and one constraint. The first objective is for IRRI to contribute to the alleviation of poverty, and for IRRI the central concern would have to be Asian poverty which still accounts for the greater part of world poverty. The second is, in view of the looming shortage of water, for IRRI to ensure that rice production minimizes the use of water as far as possible. The constraint is that IRRI is a producer of rice production technology, and therefore the relative emphasis should recognize the limits on how much such technology can contribute towards meeting the two objectives.
The Panel has examined the current levels of resources in the two ecosystems, has considered the needs of the different groups of the poor, the ability of technology to solve their problems, taken guesses on what the probabilities of success in the various lines of research, and concludes that the present allocation of resources between the Favourable and the Fragile Ecosystem Programmes is about right, although there is room for adjustments within the latter, with more going to the rainfed lowlands and less to upland, because of the greater probability of success in the one over the other.
The Panel has arrived at this judgement with large doses of subjective considerations. While subjective judgements are unavoidable in such exercises, it would be quite helpful for IRRI’s planning and for its relations with donors if the assumptions and the subjective judgements underlying the exercise above were made explicit and quantified as much as possible.
The second thrust of IRRI is conservation and curation of rice germplasm with dissemination of the associated information. It is summarized in Chapter 2. This thrust stems from its current responsibilities from housing, on trust, the International Rice Genebank Collection. This is one of the most exciting and important activities worldwide in crop biology in the next ten years. Answers to many vital applied and fundamental questions that are buried in this germplasm are being vigorously addressed in the US, Japan, China and Europe. Most of the information is being published. The funding in these countries seems likely to continue. NSF, for example, is committed to characterizing many features of rice germplasm over the coming years. The challenge involves generating the knowledge to link chromosome segments and genes to traits in the field. It involves high throughput molecular assays on large numbers of samples, on the one hand, and careful field measurements of plant traits on the other. IRRI should do all it can to empower all the other players in the world to get these tasks done as rapidly as possible in a structured way, using the resources of others, and to disseminate the information to all via web-based systems. IRRI can facilitate and stimulate this because it has the germplasm and, with INGER and others, can help make sure it is evaluated to learn the chromosome segments that contribute to important traits. This knowledge will guide breeding in the future.
IRRI needs to operate with a strong IP strategy, despite its commitment to providing germplasm freely to all. Behind the issue is whether the poor are going to be served by IRRI with top quality proven science and discoveries, patented or not, or only unprotected, probably less proven and inferior technology that takes longer to develop. The answer seems clear: if IRRI does not use the most useful technology, patented or not, it will become less relevant to both donors and client countries and will have increasing difficulty in sustaining top scientists. It will risk wasting resources trying to find alternative solutions. It is therefore inevitable that IRRI will need to seek more licenses to needed technologies, providing that they do not undermine its purpose and do not compromise the benefits.
In recognition of all these new challenges, IRRI has produced a Board approved policy on germplasm management, engineering and software discoveries and IPR in general. This necessarily embodies links with the private sector. The EPMR Panel congratulates IRRI on the initiatives it has taken and agrees with the principles set out within it. This policy attempts to sustain as many as possible of IRRI’s products as international public goods but IRRI also recognizes that if it is to serve the poor well it must not automatically exclude the use of germplasm and technologies that carry IPR. The policies are carefully blended to allow this. While the policy is well thought out, the main challenge is in fulfilling its principles on a case by case basis, in-house and with its clients, and effectively maintaining IRRI’s mission for the poor.
The current complexities of the regulations surrounding the release of transgenic germplasm into agriculture and food chains are well known. At the same time, IRRI needs to continue to respond to the NARS wishing to take advantage of these breakthroughs. Fortunately, the private and the public sectors in developed and developing countries are screening large number of transgenes and moving valuable ones through field trials towards products. Thus, IRRI can afford to monitor these advances and only commit itself to develop highly selected, NARS approved transgenic varieties when the value, biosafety and IP license issues can be clarified. Consequently, IRRI should not put a high proportion of its resources into this area ahead of progress elsewhere. This is one case where IRRI might usefully position itself as a fast follower with or behind another Asian country.
There is the additional very important issue of whether IRRI should release transgenics at all because of the perceived risk of genetically contaminating other strains, especially wild strains, with transgenes. Are there risks that would create any liabilities, scientific or legal, for IRRI? To conduct field trial of any transgenic, permission from the government of the country in which the trial is to take place is necessary. To the extent that regulations are in place, IRRI should ensure strict compliance among its own scientists and, if IRRI finances the operation, of its partners’ scientists as well. One area for which IRRI has responsibility covers risks to IRGC lines. The Panel strongly suggests that IRRI does not plant, harvest seed, store or transport any transgenics in such a way that they could contaminate the IRGC lines. Any such contamination occurring due to IRRI or a partner’s fault would greatly undermine IRRI’s reputation. This is a serious issue that should be managed very carefully.
In summary, IRRI Management and Board must pay the highest attention to the evolution of the transgene and IPR landscape internationally, and scrutinize every item adopted into its research Programmes for ownership and IPR issues. IRRI should make sure that its internal IP Management Unit functions efficiently and effectively and that its standards for handling IPR are impeccable. Internal audits on technology in use should be routine and results reported to the Board. A high emphasis on training of these issues must be maintained in-house and with all other stakeholders. Management of IP matters is continuous, as for example, if genes not known to carry patents on an initial analysis have patents granted later on, IRRI may not be free to release products it has been developing using these genes. In such cases, licenses must be gained by IRRI and client countries or the project abandoned. If IRRI seeks a license it must do its best to ensure that its client countries will be legally able to receive and use the products, recognizing that this may be in many years time. Mistakes will be costly. They will waste resources, undermine credibility of client countries and donors in IRRI and the CGIAR as a cost-effective, realistic way of bringing the best technology to benefit the poor.
If all this sounds ominous, it should be noted that the problems exist because a new extraordinary knowledge base has opened up for IRRI to exploit for the poor, and many of the leading industries are making discoveries that can be channelled by IRRI for the benefit of the poor with perhaps spectacular gains as the decade goes by.
The research to address the favourable and the fragile environments is currently carried out in two Programmes even though it is recognized that they are far from mutually exclusive categories. Nevertheless, the two Programmes called 2 and 3 should remain. However it should be strengthened in a number of ways.
The Panel recommends that Programmes 2 and 3 become the flagships of IRRI’s research effort, with strong and articulate Leaders, who should prioritize and implement integrated research within their assigned ecosystems. They will be IRRI’s representatives in the Programmes’ research consortia and will be the spokespersons for their respective Programmes. The Leaders have the following tasks:
- When setting priorities they should evaluate alternative approaches to alleviating the poverty problems in their ecosystems, and recommend changes to project structure as needed.
- In implementing the research they should control the GOC and FTE inputs, and thus may negotiate for the human resources from all the Divisions as needed.
- At particular milestones during or at the close of their research, they should sponsor studies of the impact of their work.
The third major area underpinning the research in Programmes 2 and 3 is functional genomics and germplasm analysis in Programme 1. This has the underpinning role for internal research and also a highly visible role in germplasm provision and genetic analysis to the global rice community. It is appropriate that this exists as a Programme to provide this status, but its leader currently spending most of his time on the work of Programme 2 should ensure that its internal underpinning role is not compromised.
The Panel considers that these three Programmes and their outputs should be presented and perceived as the flagships of IRRI. We suggest that the current Programme 4, based around the social sciences and on information dissemination, should be disbanded. Some of the social sciences work should be incorporated into Programmes 2 and 3 to ensure that all major projects have inputs from the social scientists, from inception to delivery and adoption. Such an arrangement should make transparent their role in alleviating poverty. The training and information dissemination component of the current Programme 4 should also have a new status because of its extreme importance and the opportunities in the new era of information technology.
The three Programme Leaders should carry the responsibilities not only to manage the integration of the work needed to deliver the outputs but also to ensure that the Programme priorities and outputs are closely coupled to partner needs. The two principal Consortia, currently Projects 6 and 9, are capable of being elevated to take on this role. These should form the delivery vehicles of Programmes 2 and 3.
With these three Programmes what should be the balance between them? This question has no simple answer because the funds going to each are being influenced increasingly by special projects and the Challenge Programmes. The Panel is making its judgements on a current picture and that which seems likely to emerge in future years.
The resources should of course follow the priorities that emerge from assessments of all the variables that should influence budget allocations, including FTEs. The Panel has already provided some tentative answers as to the factors that influence the relative needs between Programmes 2 and 3. As for Programme 1, the Panel merely observes that for the next five to ten years, IRRI may have a degree of freedom in that there are many advanced research institutions eager to do work in rice. It needs to provide a base of scientific competence on which IRRI resources will have to be expended. Provided this is done, these institutions would choose to work with IRRI, and even on problems of concern to IRRI.
IRRI, with its policy to make germplasm and knowledge available to all as far as this is possible, serves rich and poor, for-profit and non-profit alike. IRRI fulfils its mission of alleviating hunger and poverty by stimulation and empowering of scientists to deliver products and systems that result in better and more food and improved economies of the families, regions and or countries. The information and training made available by IRRI is not all rice-specific even though it is rice-centric. Thus it should be recognized that many of IRRI’s future outputs are relatively neutral with respect to these questions.
The information thus collated and disseminated by IRRI will be available to all and thus is continent neutral. This means that IRRI would serve the globe in germplasm, genetic and trait information. The value of this in Latin America and Africa should not be underestimated. Teaching and training could also be continent neutral. It seems to the Panel that the specific regional targets that IRRI chooses to address with its selected partners should continue to be Asia based given the existing needs, the current good working relationships with Asian NARS, NGOs and the CIAT programme in Latin America. Its relationship with WARDA has, however, been fraught with tension, ranging from hostile to merely indifferent, although recently the relationship has become cordial again, and it is time for IRRI to reconsider the case for Africa, which is also what its Board has been doing.
The case for going into Africa rests almost entirely on the number of poor there, which is second to South Asia among the major regions of the world. But is rice research from IRRI the appropriate means to tackle that problem, given the fact that rice is merely one of the many food crops grown and consumed in Africa? Besides, whatever rice growing there is, is grown mostly in upland conditions in fields with mixed farming. IRRI’s work in areas with similar ecosystems in Asia has not been productive. There are irrigated areas in parts of West Africa, and rainfed lowland paddies in Madagascar where IRRI could make a useful contribution, but these produce somewhat less than 5 million tonnes currently, a little above Nepal.
The Panel suggests that IRRI should evaluate carefully the cost-effectiveness of any expansion into Africa. Should it decide to go ahead, it should do so in tandem with partners, for they are needed to work in the peculiarly difficult agronomic conditions of that continent. For West Africa, IRRI cannot proceed without WARDA. The Panel suggests that as a starting point, potential partners be invited to Los Banõs, where they can be shown what IRRI has to offer, so that they can frame their requests to IRRI with its advantages in mind.
As IRRI looks to position itself within this exciting milieu of rice research worldwide, the nimbleness of its internal structure and processes must match the task ahead.
IRRI’s Board of Trustees will need to be thoroughly engaged in planning and monitoring the direction that IRRI will pursue into the future. The stakes cannot be higher; crafting a vision and accompanying growth strategy for the years ahead will ensure that the poor in every country will benefit. Getting IRRI’s strategy wrong will sideline IRRI as a centre of excellence and relevance. The poor will be the losers, since no other institution has the unique combination of being apolitical, the sole curator of rice knowledge and essentially unlimited access to every rice growing country.
For its part, IRRI Management has the responsibility of keeping IRRI at the forefront of science and relevance. Management has shown remarkable leadership in placing IRRI where it is today, and the task ahead will be no less challenging. This EPMR has made recommendations in respect of vision and strategy and also in respect of programme structure and content that pertain to perhaps the next 5 years. No one knows today how IRRI should best position itself 10 years from now to take advantage of the emerging science and thereby best help the poor. What we do know is that Management must remain alert to an ever changing environment and adopt those strategies and processes that best enable it to carry out its mission. It will be a challenging task.
Donors overall have reduced their contributions to IRRI significantly over the past few years. Our questionnaire showed that further declines are likely over the coming decade with the status quo. It is vital that sufficient resources are available to sustain the institution at a top class level. Unless this happens, IRRI will simply become increasingly irrelevant, the quality of staff retained will decline, it will not be attractive to new blood and its stature relative to ever increasing international standards will fall below the critical level. This must not be allowed to happen. Given the exciting work that the Panel sees in IRRI, donor reluctance is difficult to understand. The Panel suspects that part of the problem may lie in the articulation of the scope and thrust of IRRI’s work, and that the poor articulation may arise from the unclear vision that IRRI has of its own potential, an issue which has been alluded to earlier. The Panel hopes that, with a clearer articulation from IRRI, the donors will collectively understand and work in concert with Board and Management to ensure that sufficient resources are sustained to keep the institution at a top class level.
The CGIAR has launched Challenge Programmes involving many institutions including CGIAR Centres, universities and research institutions in all continents. The Panel welcomes this move in the interests of harnessing the best minds to address the need of the poor. As a by-product, these bring in funds from some other sources into the CGIAR and IRRI’s mission. However, it has reduced core funds of IRRI, with decreasing scientific and financial flexibility. This approach will be well justified if the outputs that benefit the poor and IRRI’s mission are greatly enhanced. However, the CGIAR should monitor these carefully and also the Institute’s abilities to deliver on other missions and sustain their overall quality. It appears that increasingly, as elsewhere in the world, IRRI scientists will need to devote much time to seeking funds from diverse sources to progress their careers and enhance the standing of the institutions. It is to be hoped that by more and higher quality collaborations, IRRI scientists can benefit from working with and learning from the best in the world and bringing new skills and information into IRRI.
Challenge Programmes and other collaborations result in IRRI’s projects being managed from outside. This can create additional internal tensions and can result in scientists becoming less focused on IRRI. However, this should not be a problem if the project is clearly within IRRI’s specific plan and focus.
IRRI’s vision for the future must be one that clearly focuses attention on the plight of the world’s poor, that emboldens donors to fund increasingly complex science, some with longer term and less clear outcomes, and that energizes the institution to achieve excellence in an uncertain environment.
The Panel suggests that a statement along the following lines may be a starting point for this important debate about IRRI’s future:
IRRI will continue to be the politically neutral worldwide curator of knowledge on rice. Its research activities and coordinating role will focus on using the knowledge base to design high-yielding, high quality, sustainable plant varieties and concomitant farming systems that ultimately alleviate hunger and poverty - primarily in those countries where IRRI has a recognized opportunity to add value. It will do this through local NARS, Consortia arrangements, and/or in cooperation with the private sector - indeed wherever the comparative advantage lies at the time.
To maintain its position at the forefront of rice science, IRRI will be a well respected, sought after partner in the scientific community - looking for those intersections where developing sciences may be useful in furthering IRRI’s vision for the poor.
