Contents

Foreword v
Acknowledgments vi
Executive summary vii
Why an international center for rice? 1
Present involvement 1
History of involvement 3
Criteria for involvement: history 3
A summary of criteria for involvement in countries 3
Modes of collaboration 12
Criteria for IRRI office in country 22
Criteria for differentiating involvement 25
Criteria for evaluating RD&D focus 25
Target and means of delivery 25
Bibliography 28
Web database sites 28
Appendix 1. Groupings and modes of collaboration from 29
previous medium-term plan
Appendix 2. Ten features of a good country-assistance 30
strategy
Foreword

The involvement of IRRI in many countries requires that we

identify priorities among and within countries.
This publication brings together relevant information that
could be used to identify countries and areas where IRRI
would invest its scarce resources. As experience will show,
however, this is not a straightforward exercise. One still has
to use other considerations, sometimes not quantifiable, to
reach a decision on priority setting.
Be that as it may, having a good database and an analysis
of the information contained therein allows for a synoptic
view of the conditions, especially as they affect rice. This
synoptic view is important in setting priorities.
While we recognize that this database is at an early
stage, we hope that this compendium and its analytical
section will be the start of a comprehensive and transparent
process that will allow managers and researchers to deter-
mine priorities and levels of involvement in our country
programs.
We hope that researchers and research managers will
find this work useful. We welcome suggestions on how to
further improve the contents of this compendium and refine
the process of priority setting.

WILLIAM G. PADOLINA
Deputy Director General, Partnerships
IRRI

v
Acknowledgments

The contents of this paper represent the collective efforts

and vision of many IRRI staff members over the past 40
years of the Institute’s history. In particular, we would like to
highlight the contributions of Dr. Glenn Denning, who was
instrumental in developing and supporting many of IRRI’s
country programs. We thank Bill Hardy for his meticulous
editing of this document.

vi
Executive summary
Organizations invest in IRRI as a vehicle for
increasing impact and enhancing the livelihoods
of those poor people who depend on rice. As a
result of this investment, IRRI now has research
activities in more than 20 countries and interacts
with many more. These activities are conducted
in partnership with a range of national agricul-
tural research and extension systems (NARES).
The form of involvement ranges from major in-
country projects through various forms of
collaborative research and training to information
and germplasm exchange and occasional
consultancy visits. The purpose of this document
is to (1) document IRRI’s past and present
involvement in countries and (2) document the
criteria for IRRI’s involvement and the forms of
that involvement. These criteria provide a basis
for analysis of IRRI’s activities both now and in
the future. Such ongoing analysis is required to
allow for changes in country needs as their
economies develop and needs shift. Thus, the
appropriate forms of collaboration and involve-
ment with each country are not static but will
require constant review.
Criteria for involvement
The primary criteria for IRRI to be involved in a
country relate to (1) the significance of rice and
(2) the extent of poverty. (Note: Various indica-
tors can be used for both of these factors.) A
series of other modifiers then determines the
actual extent and form of involvement. These
factors are of two types:
Country factors:
1. Level of economic development
2. Extent of country demand for assistance and
collaboration
3. NARES capacity in terms of research and
delivery
4. Opportunities for collaboration and impact
(and spillover) in light of the socio-political
setting
5. Importance of national and regional food
security
6. Country population
7. Distance from Los Baños
IRRI factors:
1. IRRI comparative advantage and supply
capacity
2. Availability of funds
Data can then be assembled on each of
these factors and used to analyze country
groupings and potential IRRI investment.
Forms of involvement
IRRI’s broad roles can be defined as those of
provider, facilitator, and/or collaborator. As a
country’s research, delivery, and development
(RD&D) capacity grows, IRRI’s role will shift
from one of primarily providing to increased
levels of facilitation and collaboration. The
themes of collaboration can take on various
forms, including
• Upstream research (e.g., genomics, biotech-
nology)
• Strategic research (e.g., weed ecology
studies)
• Applied research (e.g., technology develop-
ment, evaluation, adaptation, and delivery)
Collaborative research activities can include
• Exchanges of
• Germplasm
• Prototypes
• Information/knowledge
vii
• Delivery enhancement, including decision b. Depend on the extent and form of IRRI
support tools activities in the country or region (an
• Policy advice office may be based in one country to
• Capacity (and infrastructure) building also serve neighboring countries).
The products of collaboration are thus c. Depend on host-country demand.
methodologies, policy, technology, decision d. Depend on funding availability.
support systems or tools, information, germplasm, • Collaborative research—on a specific in-
prototypes, awareness, image, priority setting, country project, scientist-to-scientist ex-
needs assessment, opportunity analysis, institu- changes, or through consortia activities.
tional strengthening, and impact assessment. • Scientist visits/consultations.
For enhanced impact, IRRI promotes the The form of interaction will ultimately
structure of research around a content-process- depend on IRRI’s comparative advantage and
local knowledge framework. Such a framework ability to meet demand. Thus, funding opportuni-
brings together the knowledge experts (content) ties will always be an issue in determining the
with the communication experts (process) with form and extent of involvement.
the assurance of relevance through the involve-
ment of local experts (local knowledge).
Actual involvement in a country will depend
largely on problem analysis, consultation, and
opportunity analysis, but can include
• Physical presence in the country through an
internationally or nationally recruited staff
position. In general, in-country presence will
a. Be in advanced-economy countries if
provided by the host country to facilitate
interactions and knowledge flow.

viii
Research for Development: IRRI’s In-Country Roles
M.A. Bell, J.A. Lapitan, and M. Hossain
Why an international center for rice?1
One of every three people depend on rice for
more than half of their daily food and one in nine
(about 700 million) depend on rainfed rice.
Ninety percent of the world’s rice is grown and
consumed in Asia, where more than half the
world’s people and about two-thirds of the
world’s poor live. Rice is also an important staple
in some countries of Latin America and Africa.
IRRI was originally established to help
national systems assist farmers in developing
countries in producing more rice to improve rural
incomes and overcome chronic national food
shortages. In this, IRRI and others have been
successful. From 1965-67 to 1991-93, total rice
production doubled. However, rice surpluses and
low prices in recent years have helped give the
false impression that the world’s food production
problems have been solved. World population
pressure is intense with about 80–100 million
additional people needing to be fed each year. In
response, the world’s annual unmilled rice
production must increase by around 8–12 million
t of milled rice per year to keep up with popula-
tion growth and income-induced demand for
food. At current world yield levels, this means
adding 2–3 million ha of new rice-producing land
per year—land that is not available. Thus, to
IRRI is presently involved with germplasm and natural resource management research in
more than 20 countries, germplasm exchange with 52 countries, information distribution with
130 countries, and training involving more than 50 countries.
1
This section comes in part from IRRI’s Web page.
meet demand and reduce drudgery, we need
sustainable and improved rice production sys-
tems that will lead to more rice on limited land
with less water, less labor, and less chemical
inputs. We also need to achieve this without
harming the environment.
Present involvement
IRRI’s broad roles can be defined as those of
provider, facilitator, and/or collaborator. Table 1
shows the current range of IRRI’s primary
research activities. IRRI also has a range of
other activities in more than 70 countries. For
example, from 1995 to 2000, IRRI provided rice
germplasm to 52 countries through the Interna-
tional Network for Genetic Evaluation of Rice
(INGER) (Table 2). In human resource develop-
ment, IRRI has around 200 participants in
training events each year. Throughout its history,
IRRI has had almost 6,000 participants in short-
term group training and around 3,000 in degree/
nondegree training from 98 countries. Many of
those trained now hold important positions in
their government programs. Information ex-
change involves 130 countries with the bulk of
this—around 80% of all publication distribution—
being with 20 countries (Australia, Bangladesh,
Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan,
1
Table 1. Summary of IRRI activities in major rice-producing countries as of 2000.

Substantial Liaison Country Network Consortia member*

Country research office project member
activity IR RL UR FP

Bangladesh Y Y Y HR Y (y) Y
Bhutan P
Brazil Y
Cambodia P Y (y)
China Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y (y)
Egypt
India Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y Y Y
Indonesia Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y Y
Iran SP
Korea (N)
Lao PDR Y Y IPM Y (y) Y
Madagascar P P (y)
Malaysia IPM Y
Myanmar P Y (y) (y)
Nepal
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y Y
Sri Lanka HR Y
Thailand Y Y IPM, INM Y Y Y Y
Vietnam Y Y IPM, INM, HR Y Y Y

Developed countries
Australia Y
France Y
Japan IJS Y
Korea (S) Y
USA Y

*IR = irrigated, RL = rainfed lowlands, UR = uplands, FP = Flood-prone, IJS = IRRI-Japan Shuttle, IPM = integrated pest management, INM =
integrated nutrient management, P = presently phasing down unless funding scenario changes, HR = hybrid rice, SP = special project, Y = yes,
(y) = associate or observer member.
Note: The Indonesia liaison office also has responsibility for Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam.

Table 2. Countries collaborating with INGER, 1995-2000.

Asia Africa Europe/West Asia Oceania-Pacific Americas

Bangladesh Egypt Iran Australia Argentina

Bhutan Côte d’Ivoire Iraq Fiji Island Bolivia
Cambodia Gambia Italy Papua New Guinea Brazil
China Kenya Turkey Colombia
India Madagascar Turkmenistan Cuba
Indonesia Morocco Guyana
Japan Mozambique Mexico
Korea (S) Namibia Peru
Korea (N) Nigeria Surinam
Lao PDR Senegal USA
Malaysia Sierra Leone
Myanmar South Africa
Nepal Tanzania
Pakistan Zambia
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam

2
Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines,
South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, UK,
USA, and Vietnam).
History of involvement
Table 3 summarizes IRRI’s historical involve-
ment including the posting of in-country staff
with the major collaborating countries (research
linkages with advanced research institutions in
countries such as Australia, France, Japan, South
Korea, and the USA are not shown).
IRRI has a rich history of major projects in
more than 20 countries.
Criteria for involvement: history
History would suggest that multiple criteria
determine involvement with countries, involving
both dominant factors and a series of modifiers.
For example, Table 4 shows the criteria and
indicators used in the previous IRRI medium-
term plan (MTP) for allocating priorities. These
criteria have recently been reviewed and the
suggested percent investment by ecoregion and
country is shown in Table 5. In the case of the
International Programs Management Office
(IPMO), several criteria were added for defining
the level of involvement and mode of collabora-
tion (see Table 4 and Appendix 1; Appendix 2
shows the summarized World Bank strategy for
involvement). In the case of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), former Chairman I. Serageldin stated
that CG involvement is to be based on
• A strong and unremitting focus on poverty
alleviation,
• Commitment to bring modern science to bear
on the attainment of the new vision,
• Priority to South Asia and sub-Saharan
Africa, where most of the world’s poor live,
• Regional approaches to research planning,
and
• Close integration of CGIAR activities with
those of partners in the developing regions,
including partners engaged in development
work.
Historically, alleviating poverty, expected rice
demand, food security, sustainability, and
alternative suppliers of research have been
the key factors used to determine suggested
investment in countries. Gender equity,
sustaining high yields, and shifting the yield
frontier were important modifiers.
The suggested order of investment from the
model by agroecological zone in Asia is warm
humid tropics (AEZ3) > warm subhumid tropics
(AEZ2) > warm subhumid subtropics with
summer rainfall (AEZ6) > warm and semiarid
tropics (AEZ1) > warm/cool humid subtropics
(AEZ7) > warm arid and semiarid tropics with
summer rainfall (AEZ5) > cool subtropics with
summer rainfall (AEZ8).
The order of investment by country or area
according to modified model output is India,
China, Bangladesh, Africa, Indonesia, Latin
America, Vietnam, Myanmar/Nepal, Philippines,
Pakistan, Thailand, Cambodia, Madagascar, Sri
Lanka/Malaysia/Lao PDR, North Korea, South
Korea, Japan.
A summary of criteria for involvement in
countries
Dominant factors: Based on IRRI’s goal “to
improve the well-being of present and future
generations of rice farmers and consumers,
particularly those with low income,” the
dominant factors for involvement are (1) the
significance of rice and (2) the extent of poverty
(with various indicators that can be used for
each) (Table 6). These factors can then be used
to group countries according to various factors
(e.g., Figures 1–18 and Tables 7 and 8). (It
should be noted that the statistics presented are
national and considerable within-country varia-
tion can exist.)
Modifiers: In addition to the dominant factors,
several practical modifiers and factors determine
the appropriate form and level of involvement
(Table 6). Some of the factors can be deter-
mined as discrete numbers, whereas some are
assessments based on experience. One major
change in determining IRRI’s involvement is to
3
 Table 3. Summary of IRRI involvement in various rice-producing countries.

4
Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in country
collaboration MOU/MOA
started

Bangladesh 1966 1985 Bangladesh-IRRI 1967-73 Ford Foundation L.P.V. Johnson, plant breeder
Rice Project R. Walker, rice specialist
Research Station 1974-75 Ford Foundation D. Catling
Development
Rice Research 1976-80 (Phase I) Ford Foundation, F. Shepard
and Training Project AIDAB, CIDA, USAID M. McIntosh (1985-87)
1981-87 (Phase II) (Phase I & II)
1988-93 (Phase III) USAID and CIDA J. McIntosh, research
(Phase II & III) systems specialist
Collaborative Research 1994-97 ADB, Core S. Bhuiyan (based in Los Baños)
ARMP 1998-to date WB S. Bhuiyan, IRRI representative
Poverty Elimination 1999-to date DFID, Govt. of Noel Magor, project manager
through Rice Research Bangladesh
Assistance (PETRRA)

Bhutan 1984 1990 Rice-Based Farming 1984-95 IDRC G.L. Denning (project coordinator based
Systems Project at Los Baños) 1994-June 1997
Wetland Production 1995-June 2000 IDRC, SDC J.A. Lapitan (project coordinator based
Systems Project at Los Baños, July 1997-June 2000)
EPINARM July 2000-to date IDRC, SDC

Cambodia 1980 1986 CIAP—Cambodia-IRRI- 1987-2002 AusAid H. Nesbitt, agronomist, team leader
Australia Project R. Lando, technology transfer
R. Chaudhary, plant breeder
R. Joshi, entomologist
P. White, soil scientist
E. Javier, plant breeder
J. Rickman, ag engineer
G. Jahn, entomologist
P. Cox, ag economist

China 1960/1982 1998 IRRI-China Office 1998-to date Core Dr. S.X. Tang, liaison scientist

Egypt Early 1970s 1980 Egypt-IRRI Rice 1988-91 (Phase I) USAID E. Spratt
Research Project 1991-94 (Phase II) USAID A.P.K. Reddy
R. Tinsley
D. Hille Ris Lambers
A.N. Rao

India 1967 1974 All India Cooperative 1967-72 USAID/Rockefeller W. Freeman, rice breeder and
Rice Improvement Foundation joint coordinator
Project (AICRIP) S.V.S. Shastry, geneticist and coordinator
H. teu Have, agronomist
H. Kaufman, plant pathologist
J. Lowe, entomologist
Collaborative projects 1974-to date Core and Govt. B.P. Ghildyal, liaison scientist 1984-95
of India R.K. Singh, liaison scientist 1995-to date
 Table 3 (continued).

Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in country
collaboration MOU/MOA
started

Indonesia 1972 1978 National Rice 1977-84 USAID J.R. Cowan, liaison scientist 1977-83
Research Program B.R. Jackson, plant breeder
R. Morris, cropping systems agronomist
W. Tappan, liaison scientist 1984-88
Collaborative Projects 1984-to date C. Mamaril, agronomist and liaison
scientist, 1989-95
M. Syam, liaison scientist 1995-to date

Iran Early 1960s 1983 Iran-IRRI Rice 1995-to date Govt. of Iran G.S. Khush (project coordinator based in
Research and Los Baños)
Training Project

Japan 1962 1979 IRRI-Japan office that 1962-73 Govt. of Japan Jukyu Cho, in charge of IRRI
translates Japanese Tokyo office
Rice Literature
Japan-IRRI Shuttle 1990-to date Govt. of Japan Masami Himeda, liaison scientist
Research Tadashi Morinaka, liaison scientist
Kazuko Morooka, librarian
Hiroyuki Hibino, liaison scientist

Korea (North) 1988 1989 DPRK-IRRI Rice 1997-99 Rockefeller Foundation J.A. Lapitan (project coordinator based in
Research and Los Baños)
Training Project

Korea (South) 1964 1986 Rapid Seed 1968- RDA liaison scientists based at IRRI: C.S. Park
Multiplication Program 1979-80; G.S. Chung 1980-83; S.C. Lee 1983-
84; C.I. Cho 1984-85; C.H. Kim 1986-89; J.K.
GUVA Project 1978- Park 1989-90; M.S. Lim 1991-92; N.K. Park
1993-94; J. Yang 1994-96; D. Chung 1996-
98; M.H. Lee 1998-to date

Lao PDR 1968 1987 IRRI-Lao Research SDC

& Training Project
Phase I 1990-93 J. Schiller, team leader
S. Puspavesa, plant breeder
Phase II 1993-96 J. Schiller, team leader
T. Kupchanakul, agronomist
W. Roder, agronomist (upland)
Phase III 1996-June 2000 J. Schiller, team leader
B. Linquist, agronomist
K. Farhney, agronomist
Phase IV July 2000-June 2003 J. Schiller, team leader
B. Linquist, agronomist

5
6
Table 3 (continued).

Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in country
collaboration MOU/MOA
started

Madagascar 1982 1982; 1996 Madagascar-IRRI 1984-90 USAID J. Hooper, team leader
Rice Research Project B. Shahi, plant breeder
(3 phases) 1991-97 USAID V. Balasubramanian, team leader
T. Masajo, plant breeder
M. Gaudreau, cropping systems agronomist
S. Almy, Socioeconomist

Madagascar-IRRI 1998-January 2001 USAID M. Gaudreau, team leader and agroecologist

Environment and
Agriculture Research
Project

Myanmar 1965 1977 IRRI-Burma 1979-89 CIDA P. Escuro, rice breeder

Cooperative Project

Myanmar-IRRI Farming 1989-97 IDRC R. Palis, IRRI representative and agronomist,

Systems Project 1989-94
CBNRM (Community- 1997-2000 IDRC (to 1998) A. Garcia, IRRI representative and agronomist,
Based Natural 1994-2000
Resource Management
Project)

Nepal Early 1970s 1985 None None None None

Pakistan 1966 1997 Pakistan-IRRI 1967-72 Ford Foundation K. Mueller, rice specialist
Accelerated Rice G. McLean, rice specialist
Production Project
Pakistan-IRRI Rice 1997-98 World Bank None
Research and Training
Project

Peru None None None None None None

Philippines 1960 1960 Various 1960-to date Various R. Feueher, liaison scientist, 1973-82
D. Wood, liaison scientist, 1983-86
 Table 3 (continued).

Country When First Project Period Principal donor IRRI staff members posted in country
collaboration MOU/MOA
started

Sri Lanka 1960 1967 DOASL-IRRI 1967-69 (Phase I) Ford Foundation J. Moomaw, rice specialist
Cooperative Project 1969-71 (Phase II) W. Golden, rice specialist
1976-82 USAID J. Wimberly, rice processing engineer
R.C. Khatter, associate engineer
J. Wimberly, IRRI representative
M. Davis, crop production specialist/team
leader
R. Freed, associate plant breeder
R. Tinsley, associate agronomist
DOASL-IRRI Rice 1989-95 SAREC None
Research and Training
Project

Thailand 1960 1991 Deepwater Research 1974 to date IRRI, MOAC (Govt. B.R. Jackson, plant breeder and liaison
and Training Project of Thailand) scientist, 1966-82
D. Hille Ris Lambers, plant breeder 1975-81
Small Farm Machinery 1976-85 USAID D. Puckridge, agronomist and liaison scientist,
Project 1981-96
D. Senadhira, plant breeder and liaison
scientist, 1996-June 1998
J.A. Lapitan, interim liaison scientist,
July-Dec. 1998
S. Sarkarung, plant breeder, 1998-to date
B. Somrith, liaison scientist, 1999-to date

Vietnam 1964 1984 Strengthening CLRRI’s 1992-95 UNDP A. Mandac (project coordinator based in Los
research and training Baños
capacity

Research and non- 1988-95 AusAid None

degree training D. Puckridge, part-time liaison scientist,
1996-97
G.L. Denning, de facto liaison scientist (from
Los Baños) 1997-98
M.A. Bell, de facto liaison scientist (from Los
Baños) to date

7
 Table 4. Factors used in previous MTP for determining involvement and IRRI
priorities.

MTP criteria Indicator IPMO criteria for

grouping countries

Future rice demand Per capita consumption Rice area

Alleviating poverty and Calorie deprivation Level of NARS

food insecurity

Sustainability Rice area under unfavorable History of collaboration

ecosystems (unsustainability) and distance
Area under rice-rice

Alternative suppliers Agricultural research

of research expenditure

Modifiers

Gender equity Likelihood of spillover

Sustaining high yields and NARS contribution to

shifting the yield frontier IRRI’s global agenda

Need for critical

minimum effort

Table 5. Suggested investment percentages developed for IRRI’s 2000 MTP based on criteria listed in Table 4.
(Numbers represent standardized numbers from a total of 1,000.)

AEZ1 AEZ2 AEZ3 AEZ5 AEZ6 AEZ7 AEZ8

Country Warm and Warm Warm Warm arid Warm subhumid Warm/cool Cool
semiarid subhumid humid and semiarid subtropics humid subtropics Total Percent
tropics tropics tropics tropics with with summer subtropics with
summer rainfall rainfall summer rainfall

Bangladesh 143 143 14

Cambodia 8 8 1
China 21 60 82 3 166 17
India 108 200 1 37 4 350 35
Indonesia 63 63 6
Japan 0 0 0
Korea (N) 3 3 0
Korea (S) 2 2 0
Lao PDR 4 4 0
Madagascar 2 2 2 6 1
Malaysia 4 4 0
Myanmar 23 23 2
Nepal 23 23 2
Pakistan 13 13 1
Philippines 14 14 1
Sri Lanka 4 4 0
Thailand 11 11 1
Vietnam 28 28 3
Rest of Asia 6 6 1
Total 108 234 268 35 125 82 13
Percent 11 23 27 4 12 8 1

Africa 105 11
Latin America 34 3

8
 Notes from Table 5:
Definitions and countries within Asia represented by agroecological zones (AEZ).

Zone Definition Countries represented in AEZ

AEZ1 Warm and semiarid tropics India

AEZ2 Warm subhumid tropics India, Myanmar, Thailand
AEZ3 Warm humid tropics Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR,
Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam
AEZ5 Warm arid and semiarid China, India, Pakistan
tropics with summer rainfall
AEZ6 Warm subhumid subtropics India, China, North Korea, South Korea, Nepal,
with summer rainfall Japan
AEZ7 Warm/cool humid subtropics China
AEZ8 Cool subtropics with summer rainfall India, China, rest of Asia

Table 6. Criteria to determine the type of partnership collaboration with NARES and examples of potential
indicators for each.

Dominant factors
• Poverty
• Purchasing power parity, percent poverty, child mortality, calorie deficit, UNDP human development index
• Income/rice reliance—risk of food insecurity (index of M. Hossain, 1996)
• Significance of rice
• Area devoted to rice as % of total arable land; total production; rice consumption (total or calorie); percent household
dependent on rice; percent labor force in rice; contribution of rice to GDP; percent and value of total rice import;
importation per capita; percent and value of total rice export; production per capita; agriculture as a % of GDP; people
per arable ha; extent of self-sufficiency—what if a disaster?
Practical modifiers of involvement
• Level of economic development
• World Bank rating of level of economic development
• NARES demand and strength (human resources and infrastructure for research and delivery)
• Extent of demands received
• Strength of research system
• Arable ha per researcher
• Presence of developed academic facilities (university, etc.)
• Availability of developed or advanced research facilities and laboratories
• Availability of advanced farm and laboratory equipment
• Presence of trained human resources (PhD, MSc, BS)
• Strength of delivery system—rate of yield increase (this is really an integration of a range of factors involving policy,
research outputs, and delivery capacity)
• Investment in agricultural research
• Total agricultural research budget vis-à-vis GNP
• Protection of the environment
• Importance of national and regional food security
• Population—significance of country and self-sufficiency
• History of collaboration with IRRI
• Collaborative opportunities
• Potential for impact and spillover benefits (socio-political setting)
• IRRI comparative advantage and supply capacity
• Fund availability (including matching donor and host-country interest)
• Potential for external bilateral funding support; capacity to provide local funding support (from government sources)
• Distance (cost and communication efficiencies) implications for efficiency of input

9
 Table 7a. Country groupings based on significance of rice and extent of
poverty (as estimated by child mortality).

High Korea (S) Indonesia Bangladesh

Malaysia Philippines Cambodia
Sri Lanka Lao PDR
Thailand Myanmar
Vietnam Nepal

Significance of rice Medium Japan Bhutan China

(as percent of India
arable land area) Madagascar
Korea (N)

Low USA Brazil Pakistan

Australia Peru
France Iran
Egypt

Low Medium High

Poverty

• Child mortality per 1,000 births as an index of poverty: Low = <20, Medium = 20–60; High = >60.

Table 7b. Country groupings based on significance of rice and human

development index.

High Korea (S) Malaysia Lao PDR

Thailand Nepal
Philippines Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
Indonesia
Vietnam
Myanmar
Cambodia
Significance of rice
(as percent of Medium Japan China Bhutan
arable land area) India Madagascar
Korea (N)

Low USA Brazil Pakistan

Australia Peru
France Iran
Egypt
Pakistan

High Medium Low

Poverty

• UNDP human development index as an index for poverty: Low = >0.8, Medium = 0.5–0.8, High =
<0.5.
• Significance of rice: rice as a percent of arable land: Low = <25%, Medium = 25–50%, High =
>50%.

10
 Table 8. Summary table of countries based on different indicators.

Focus (see explanations below) Modifiers

(such as socio-political
Country Poverty Significance Agriculture Institutional Food Sustainabilityf Income/ Potential system, NARES
alleviationa of riceb as of % capacity securitye rice for demand)
of GDPc needsd relianceg impact?
1 2 1 2

Bangladesh H H H M M M H M H M-H
Bhutan M M H H H H M
Cambodia H H H H H H L L M H
China M M M M L L L M H H
India H M M M M M L L H M-H
Indonesia M H H M M L L M H M-H
Korea (N) H M L H M H H M L System challenges
Lao PDR H H H H H M M L M M-H
Myanmar H H H H H M L L M L System challenges
Nepal H H M H L H L L H M
Pakistan H L L M L M L L H L-M System challenges
Philippines M H M M L M H M H M-H
Sri Lanka L-M H M M M M L H H M
Thailand M H M L M H L L M M-H
Vietnam M H H M L L L M H H
Latin America and
Caribbean
Iran M L L M L L H L M
Africa M
Madagascar H M M H H H L L M
High income,
self-reliant
Korea (S) L H M L L L L H L L System advanced, yields high
Japan L M L L L M L H L L System advanced, yields high
Malaysia L H M L L H H H L L-M

Definitions for Table 8.

a
Child mortality per 1,000 births as an index of poverty: L = <20, M = 20–60, H = >60.
b
Significance of rice.
• 1 = rice as a percent of arable land: L = <25%, M = 25–50%, H = >50%
• 2 = consumption in kg per capita: L = <100, M = 100–200, H = >200
c
Agriculture as a percent of GDP: L = <15%, M = 15–30%, H = >30%
d
Institutional capacity needs: 1 = ha per researcher as an index: L = <10,000, M = 10,000–20,000, H = >20,000; 2 = delivery capacity: based on rate of yield gain 1961-98 (kg ha–1 y–1): L = <27, M = 27–54, H
= >54 (54 = world average).
e
Food security—rice importation (kg) per capita as an index: L = <10, M = 10–20, H = >20.
f
Sustainability—people per arable ha as an index: L = <10, M = 10–20, H = >20.
g
Income/rice reliance (from Hossain 1996). L = high income, self-reliant, M = excess rice production capacity, H = risk of food insecurity.

11
change the definition of IRRI’s partners from
NARS to NARES (to include government
extension, NGOs, and the private sector) to
recognize the importance of both research and
delivery capacities in enhancing the livelihoods of
people.
Social, resource, and economic
characteristics
Population, economics, and rice statistics help
target potential countries for collaboration. For
example, although the People’s Republic of
China has the largest total population (Fig. 1),
Bangladesh has the highest population density
(Fig. 2). In contrast, Egypt places the highest
pressure on its natural resources in terms of
population per arable ha (Fig. 3). Highlighting the
importance of water in rice production, Lao PDR
has the greatest internal per capita renewable
resources (Fig. 4), while the United States has
the highest per capita use (Fig. 5). For rural
labor, Nepal has the highest rural population (%)
(Fig. 6), whereas Bhutan has the highest number
of agricultural workers per arable ha (Fig. 7).
Cambodia has the lowest average income as
estimated by purchasing power parity (Fig. 8),
whereas Myanmar relies the most on agriculture
in terms of its contribution to gross domestic
product (Fig. 9). (Estimates of poverty across
countries are very incomplete and so are not
presented.)
Significance of rice
In terms of the national significance of rice,
Vietnam has the highest use, planting more than
100% of its arable land to rice because of
multiple cropping, whereas Myanmar has the
highest per capita consumption (Fig. 10). How-
ever, as a percent of the world’s rice area, India
and China dominate, combining for almost half of
the world’s rice area (Fig. 11) with China
dominating total production (Fig. 12).
When we look at rice yields, Australia has
the highest national average (Fig. 13); however,
national yields strongly depend on the extent of
irrigated rice (Fig. 14). When we look at historic
yield trends (Fig. 15), China has had the highest
rate of yield gain (regression analysis from 1961
12
to 1998, Fig. 16). Figure 16 represents an
integration of factors contributing to yield gains,
including research and delivery capacities, policy
environments, and rice ecosystem potential. In
terms of production versus national consumption,
the relationship is essentially linear (Fig. 17),
highlighting the importance of national and
regional food security, with exporting countries
such as Vietnam and Thailand providing an
important buffer for regional food supplies. The
leading export-earning countries in 1998 were
Thailand, India, Vietnam, USA, China, and
Pakistan.
Finally, plotting the significance of rice
against an estimate of economic development
(Fig. 18) helps group countries in terms of the
dominant factors that influence involvement.
Potential involvement across rice-growing
countries can be based on several criteria.
The dominant factors remain the significance
of rice and the extent of poverty.
Table 8 shows how the countries rate in
terms of several of the criteria (including group-
ings based on the definition of Hossain (1996)).
Modes of collaboration
IRRI’s roles can be broadly defined as those of
• Provider (e.g., science, technology, expertise,
information, germplasm, prototypes, and
training),
• Facilitator (e.g., a catalyst for action or for
bringing groups together), and/or
• Collaborator.
Collaboration can take on various forms,
such as
• Upstream research (e.g., genomics, biotech-
nology),
• Strategic research (e.g., weed ecology
studies), or
• Applied research including technology
development, evaluation, adaptation, and
delivery (e.g., field-level technology develop-
ment).
 Ba
ng
la C

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
de hi
Ko sh na
re
a In
(S di
) a
Ja
pa In U
SA
n do
I ne
si
Sr ndi
iL a a
Br
Ph ank Pa zil a
ilip a
Population (millions)

pi ki
n st
Vi es an
et J
K o am n B a ap
ng an
re la
a de
P a ( N) Vi s h

Population density (people ha–1)

ki et
st P h na
an ilip m
Ne pi
pa ne
s
C l
h Ira
Th ina n
ai Eg
In land T h y pt
do a
ne
Ko ilan
Ug sia re d
an a
M da M (S
al ya )
a n
M ysia C ma
ya ol r
nm om
a Ta b
nz ia
Eg r

Country
y
Country an
Ca p i
m t Ke a
bo ny
d a
Ke ia
ny Ko Per
a re u
a
C
Ira (N
)
ol n N
om e
Ta bi M pa
nz a al l
an ay
ia U sia
M ga
ad U S S r nda
ag A iL
as a
Fig. 1. Total population (millions) of various rice-growing countries.

La car Au nka
M oP M st
oz oz ra
am DR a lia
bi M mb
qu ad iq
e ag ue
Pe a
Ca sca
ru m r
Br bo
az La dia

Fig. 2. Population density (total population per total land area, in ha) of various rice-growing countries.
Bh il o
u PD
Au tan Bh R
st
ra ut
lia an

13
 La
o

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Eg
PD yp
Bh R Ja t

14
ut Ko a p
an re n
B a
C raz M (S)
ol i al
om l ay

Cubic meters
M bia Sr sia
ya iL
nm an
M ar Vi ka
Persons arable ha–1

M ala et
ad ys Ko nam
ag i a re
as a
(N
Au car )
st C
Ph in h
In rali a
do a ili
Ba ne B a ppi
ng sia ng ne
la la s
de d
sh Ta esh
nz
C U a
am SA In nia
do
bo ne
di
a sia
M N N
oz ep ep
am al C
ol al
bi om
q b
Vi ue Bh ia
et
Ph na ut
ilip m La an
pi o
ne PD
s Ke R
Ja

Country
Country
ny
Ko pa
re n a
a M P
Ta (N ad er
nz ) ag u
as
Sr ania c
iL P a ar
an ki
ka st
an
C M
hi o z In d
na
am ia
In
d b
Th i a Ca iqu
ai m e
la b
U nd M odi
ya a
ga
nd nm
a U ar
ga
Ira nd
Pa n a

Fig. 4. Annual per capita internal renewable water resources (1998, cubic meters).
kis
Fig. 3. Productivity demand (persons arable ha–1) for various rice-growing countries.

ta Ira
n n
Pe Br
Ko ru az
re Th il
a ai
(S la
nd
Ke )
ny US
a Au A
Eg st
yp ra
t lia
 N M

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ep ad US
U al ag A
ga as
nd c
P a ar
B a ki
Ba hu st
ng tan an
la
de I
Cubic meters

Th sh Au ran
ai st
ra
C lan lia
am d
bo Eg

Rural population (%)

La dia M ypt
o al
P ay
si
Sr DR
iL a
an Ja
Ko pa
Vi ka re n
et
n a
Ph (N
Ta am ilip )
nz p
a Ko ine
M nia
ya re s
nm a
(S
ar )
M In
ad Ind Th dia
ag ia
ai
as
ca l
Sr and
Ke r iL
ny an
a ka
C C
hi hi
Pa na Vi n a
ki et
na
In stan
d m
M on P

Country
oz es Country
am ia La eru
bi o
qu PD
e R
Eg Ba Bra
M ypt ng zil
al la
Ph ays d
C esh
ilip ia ol
pi om
ne bi
s a
N
Fig. 5. Annual per capita withdrawal (cubic meters).

ep
Ko Iran M
re ya al
a n
(N In ma
) do r
Pe ne
C ru
si
ol Ke a
om
C ny
bi
a a a
U M mb

Fig. 6. Rural population (as % of total population) for various rice-growing countries.
SA oz od
am ia
Ja b
pa Ta iqu
n nz e
Br an
Ko az
re il U ia
ga
a nd
Au (S) Bh a
st ut
ra an
lia

15
 Ca
m
M b

0
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000

5,000
Bh

0
2
4
6
8
10
ad od ut
ag ia an
C

16
as h

US$
Ta ca Ta ina
M nz r nz
oz an an
am ia Vi i a
bi et
qu na
Bh e m
Ne
K o uta pa
re n l
a Eg
( y
Rural labor arable ha–1

U N) Sr
i p t
ga Ba Lan
nd
a ng k a
N la
ep de
M sh
ya al
n Ke
La m a La nya
o r o
Ba P P
n g DR I n DR
la do
de M n
sh oz es
am ia
Ke M b
ny ad iqu
a ag e
In a
Vi ia d Ko sca
et re r
n Ph a (N
P a am ilip )
ki pi
n
Sr stan
iL M es
al
a ay
In nk M sia
do a ya
ne n

Country

Country
si C ma
a am r
E bo
Ph gy
p d
ilip t Ug ia
pi an
ne da
s
C In
hi Ko dia
na
re
Pe a
ru P a (S )
ki
Ira s
Th n Th tan
ai ai
la l
nd C and
ol
Br om

Fig. 8. Purchasing power parity for various rice-growing countries.

C az bi
a
ol i Ja
om l
pa
M bi a
al n
a Pe
Ko ysia ru
re
a
Fig. 7. Rural labor abundance (rural workers arable ha–1) for various rice-growing countries.

Ira
Au (S) n
st Br
ra az
lia il
Ja U
pa S
n Au A
st
U ra
SA lia
 V M
ya

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
B a iet n nm
ng a m La ar
la
d o
PD
Sr e s C
iL h am R
a bo
La nk a Ta dia
o nz
C PD an
am R
U ia
bo ga
M dia nd
al a
ay N
si ep
a al
N M Bhu
Ph ep oz
ilip al ta
am n
p M b
M ine ad iqu
ya s ag e
nm as
In c
do ar
n Vi ar
et
Ko esi na
re a m
a
Th (S) In
M a Pa dia
ad ila ki
ag nd st
an
as Ke
ca Ba ny
ng a
Agriculture as a percentage of gross domestic product

Ja r
la
Ko pa d
re n Sr esh
a iL
(N a
)
C In nka
do
hi
n ne
Bh a C s
ut Country ol ia

Country
an om
bi
In a
di C
a Ph hin
Eg ilip a
Ta yp pi
nz t ne
a s
Pa nia Eg
ki yp
s t
C tan
ol Ira
om Th n
bi ai
la

Rice
M Br a M nd
oz a al
am zil ay
si
bi
qu a
e Br
az
Pe
ru Consumption il
P
Consumption (kg

Rice area/arable
Ir Ko eru
U an re
ga area arable land a

Fig. 10. Significance of rice (consumption and area planted) for various rice-growing countries.
nd Au (S)
Fig. 9. Agriculture as a percentage of the gross domestic product for various rice-growing countries.

a st
ra
landarea

U lia
area
(kg/capita/yr)

SA
Ke Ja
pa
n
(%)
–1 (%)

Au nya
st U

17
capita–1 y–1) (1997)

ra
(1997)

SA
lia
 W

0
5
10
15
20
25
30

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
or In
di
ld a
C

18
As
ia In hina
do
C
hi Ba ne
na ng sia
I la
I n ndi de
do a Th sh
ne ai
V sia la
Ba ietn Vi nd
et
n

Production (million t)
ng am
la M am
de ya
Th sh nm
ai ar
M lan B
ya d Ph ra
Percentage of world rice area

nm ilip il z
a pi
Ja r n
Ph p Pa es
ilip an ki
pi C sta
ne am n
s bo
U di
a
SA Ja
Br pa
Pa azi n
ki l M Ne
ad pa
Ko sta ag l
re n as
a ca
(S r
Eg ) U
yp Ko SA
N t re
C ep a
am a Sr (S
iL )
bo l a
Country
di
a Ko nka
re
a

Country or region
Sr Ira
n M (N)
M i La al
ad nk ay
ag a si
a a
Ko sca Ira
re r La

Fig. 12. Total rice production (1998).

a o n
M (N P
al ) Ta D R
a nz
C ysi
ol a an
om ia
La bia Eg
o C yp
PD o t
R M lom
oz
Pe am bia
Fig. 11. Percentage of world rice area for various rice-growing countries.

Au ru bi
st qu
r e
Ta alia
M nz Pe
oz an Au ru
am ia st
bi ra
q U lia
U ue ga
ga nd
nd
Bh a
Ke a ut
ny an
Bh a Ke
ut ny
an a
 Yield (t ha–1)
12

10

e
iL )
n
na

ru

n
do a
Vi sia

ya a

ng nya

La esh

ilip R

N l

M ai l
ag d

Ta a n

M ga a
am da
)

al ar

am ar
re t
lia

ia

Pa dia

Bh ia
SA

re d

an

i
Th pa
Ko yp

Sr (N
(S

az
ne
C I ra

si

ad lan

qu
M nk
pa

In mbi

Ko orl

Ph PD

an
d
As
na

nm

C sc
Pe
ra

hi

n
ut
st
ay
ne
Eg

bo
U

In

Br
a

Ba e

pi
a

bi
Ja

W
C

nz
st

ki
et
o

la
K

o
Au

ol

U
M

oz
Country or region

Fig. 13. National average rice yields (1998, t ha–1) for various rice-growing countries.

Average national yield (t ha–1), 1998

12

Australia
10
)
)(

8 Egypt
(

` Korea (S) USA

China
y

6 Japan
Peru

Indonesia Colombia Iran

4
g

Vietnam
World Asia Korea (N)
Kenya
Brazil Myanmar Sri Lanka
Lao PDR Bangaldesh India Malaysia Pakistan
Thailand Nepal Philippines
2 Madagascar
Tanzania
Uganda Cambodia Bhutan
Mozambique

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percent rice area irrigated

Fig. 14. Average national yields (t ha–1) in 1998 versus percent rice area irrigated.

19
 Yield (t ha–1)
7
World
Asia
6 Bangladesh
Bhutan
Cambodia
5 China
India
Indonesia
4 Iran
Korea (N)
Korea (S)
3 Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
2 Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
1 Sri Lanka
Thailand
Vietnam
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year

Fig. 15. Rice yields versus time for selected rice-growing countries.

Rate of yield gain (kg ha–1 y–1)

20

00

80

60

40

20

0
)
am d
Au ina

Ja i l

a l
a

La an

M esh

ia

ag a

M Bh a

re ore e
M DR
)

ar

Ke r
iL s
do t
lia

re a

Vi sia

ilip ru

ka

Pa ia

Ta pan

U ia

am an
SA

ld

ng tan

Th a
In gyp

(N ( N
(S

ca
az
Sr ine

C ilan
si

Ko K iqu
ad and

ny
C esi

Ko bi

an

ep
d

d
or
na

nm

Ph Pe
ra

an
r

oz ut
ay
A
h

In

bo
om

as
Ba kis
P
I

Br
a

a a
W
n

b
C

N
nz
E
st

et

la

g
ya

–-20
al
o

)
ol

–-40
Country or region

Fig. 16. Average rate of yield gain (kg ha–1 y–1) from 1968 to 1998.

20
 Consumption (kg capita–1 y–1)
350
Myanmar

300

Lao PDR
250
Bangladesh Cambodia Vietnam
Indonesia
200
1:1 line
Korea (S)
150 Philippines Thailand
China
Malaysia
Madagascar
India
Nepal
100 Sri Lanka
Japan
Korea (N)
Brazil Egypt
50 Iran Peru
Colombia
Pakistan
Uganda Tanzania
Kenya USA Australia
0 Mozambique
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Production (kg capita–1 y–1)

Fig. 17. Production versus consumption for various rice-growing countries.

Significance of rice (rice as % of arable area)

140

120
Vietnam
Bangladesh
100
Sri Lanka
Lao PDR
Cambodia
80
Malaysia
Myanmar/
Nepal Philippines
Korea (S)
60
Indonesia Thailand
Madagascar
Japan
40 Korea (N)
China
Bhutan
India
Egypt
20 Tanzania
Colombia
Pakistan Brazil
Mozambique Peru Iran Australia USA
0
Uganda/Kenya
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Purchasing power parity (US$)

Fig. 18. Significance of rice (as percent of arable land) versus purchasing power parity for various rice-growing countries.

21
 Activities can involve
• Exchanges of
• Germplasm
• Prototypes
• Information/knowledge
• Delivery enhancement—including technol-
ogy delivery (research use) and decision
support systems and tools (DSS and DST)
• Policy
• Capacity (and infrastructure) building
• Visits or consultancies
The products of collaboration thus include
methodologies, policy, technology, DSS, DST,
information, germplasm, prototypes, awareness,
image, priority setting, needs assessment,
opportunity analysis, institutional strengthening,
and impact assessment.
Although these forms of collaboration are
not discrete, they give an idea of the range of
activities that can be undertaken.
When countries are grouped based on
estimates of NARES research and delivery
capacity (e.g., Table 9), we can combine this
with information from the figures to identify the
most probable forms of collaboration (e.g., Table
10). (Note: In such an exercise, national aver-
ages are used. It is important to note, however,
that within-country variation can be great, such
as eastern India versus northern India, and North
Vietnam versus South Vietnam.)
Appropriate research involvement for IRRI in a
country depends on the needs and level of
development of the country and this can be
upstream, strategic, or applied and can take
the form of provider, facilitator, or collaborator.
Criteria for IRRI office in country
Once collaboration is established, physical
presence may become desirable. The level of
economic development of the country will largely
determine this decision:
a. For high- and upper-middle-income coun-
tries, an office would be established in the
country if provided by the host country to
facilitate interactions and knowledge flow.
This arrangement is at times an indirect
opportunity for the host country to contribute
to international development by enhancing
knowledge and technology flow through the
international agricultural research center
(IARC), which acts as an information or
technology hub.
b. For countries with lower levels of economic
development, the establishment of an office
will depend on the extent and form of IRRI
activities in the country, host-country de-
mand, and availability of funds.

Table 9. Research and delivery capacities as determined by the number of

arable ha per researcher and the rates of yield increases (1961-98).

High Malaysia Japan Australia

Pakistan USA
Philippines China
Iran
Korea (S)
Vietnam
National research
capacity (based on Medium Korea (N) Bangladesh Indonesia
ha per researcher) Nepal India
Thailand Sri Lanka

Low Bhutan Lao PDR

Cambodia Myanmar

Low Medium High

National delivery capacity

(based on rates of yield increase)

Note: national research capacity based on ha per researcher as an index: High = <10,000, Medium
= 10,000–20,000, Low = >20,000; national delivery capacity (based on the rate of yield increase,
1961-98): Low = <25, Medium = 25–50, High = >50 kg ha–1 y–1.

22
 Table 10. Country groupings and likely forms of interaction.

Economya Capacity Countries Opportunities

I. Countries with advanced production systems and well-developed economies, rice may or may not be significant, self-sufficiency not a major economic
issue (but may be a major cultural issue)

High Research and Australia, France, Japan, USA • IRRI’s role is primarily that of facilitator and collaborator
delivery very high • Strategic and upstream research collaboration
• IRRI may act on behalf of the country as a facilitator. In these cases,
Upper middle Research and Brazil, Malaysia, Korea (S) countries use IRRI’s networks and linkages to conduct activities in
delivery very high other (less developed) countries
• Learning curve experiences
• These countries are providers in their own right, being sources of
technology, knowledge, and funds

II. Countries with low- to lower-middle-income economies, research and delivery capacities generally high, poverty—significant levels, rice—self-sufficient
(or almost), rice highly significant, population pressures medium to high, food security a major issue

Lower middle Research generally high, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand • Mixed research opportunities. IRRI’s role is a mix of facilitator,
delivery variable collaborator, and provider (the latter being especially in relation to
advanced training needs)
Low Research generally high, China, Indonesia, Vietnam • Major emphasis is on developing strategic and applied research
delivery generally high capacities with special focus on sustainability research to ensure
food security in adjusting to shifts in land, labor, and water shortages
• Major mode of strengthening is research collaboration through
research consortia and bilateral NARES-IRRI programs
• Capacity building emphasis is more on strategic and applied research
• Opportunities for research into areas with spillover to other countries
may justify involvement, where an in-country analysis per se may not
• Variable emphasis on activities related to evaluation, adaptation, and
delivery of research products as they can at times be adequately met
by the NARES’ own capacity
• Research consortium member

III. Countries with low-income economies, research capacity reasonable, delivery capacity low to moderate, poverty—significant levels, rice—self-sufficient
(or almost), rice highly significant, population pressures medium to high, food security a major issue

Low Research moderate to Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan • IRRI’s role is a mix of facilitator, collaborator, and provider
high, delivery low • Requires a balance of activities to support strategic and applied
to moderate research and the evaluation, adaptation, and delivery of research
products
• Sustainability research adjusting to shifts in land, labor, and water
shortages
• Capacity building

23
24
Table 10 (continued).

Economya Capacity Countries Opportunities

IV. Countries with low-income economies, research and delivery capacities need major strengthening, poverty—significant levels, rice—self-sufficient (or
almost), rice highly significant, population pressures medium to high, food security a major issue

Low Research relatively low Bhutan, Cambodia, Lao PDR, • IRRI’s dominant role here is that of provider—often with staff based
Myanmar, Korea (N), Madagascar in the country. As NARES’ capacities grow, the roles in facilitation
and collaboration develop
• Need significant capacity building and applied research collaboration
• Greater emphasis is placed on evaluation, adaptation, and delivery of
research products through injection of large bilateral donor support
facilitated through IRRI
• As they improve their capacities, they become members of research
consortia

V. Countries with low to lower-middle-income economies, small rice-producing countries requesting assistance

Lower-middle Research moderately Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Iran, • IRRI’s dominant role here is typically that of (long-distance) provider,
high, delivery variable Egypt, Mexico, Peru with minimal role in facilitation and collaboration.
• Some strategic learning curve opportunities
Low Research moderately Nicaragua • For stronger NARES, IRRI Los Baños provides limited support
high, delivery variable through advanced degree programs and focused upstream training
• For relatively weak NARES, IRRI Los Baños provides limited support
Low Research low, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, to NARES for degree programs and focused training
delivery low Tanzania, Uganda • Germplasm and information exchange
• Sponsored consultancies
• Being generally distant from IRRI Los Baños, a low-cost approach is
used for meeting their needs, mostly by participating in technology
evaluation networks or regional programs or networks
• Minimal personnel support from IRRI Los Baños
a
World Bank economic classification: low-income economies = <US$760, lower-middle-income economies = US$761–3,030, upper-middle-income economies = US$3,031–9,360, high-income economies =
>US$9,361.
 We are increasingly seeing that, as national
economies develop, countries are contributing to
the upkeep of an IRRI presence through direct
contributions to IRRI or IRRI-related activities.
IRRI’s physical presence in a country
depends on the extent and form of IRRI
activities in the country, host-country demand,
and availability of funds.
Criteria for differentiating involvement
When all the dominant and modifying factors are
combined, five generic forms of interaction
emerge based on the level of economic develop-
ment, strength of the national research and
delivery system, extent of poverty, level of
production systems, and importance of self-
sufficiency and food security (Table 10).
IRRI’s involvement in a country can fall into
one of five generic forms depending on the
level of economic development, strength of
the national research and delivery system,
extent of poverty, and the significance of rice.
Criteria for evaluating RD&D focus
When considering the actual content of the
research, delivery, and development activities,
the following factors are considered:
• Target group
• Needs and problems
• Opportunity
• Probability of success
• Probable impact if successful—significance
of problem
• Spillover effects (flow to other regions and
countries)
• Alternative suppliers of RD&D
• Comparative advantage
• Other factors, such as public/donor percep-
tions/values, socio-political setting
Another issue is to highlight the appropriate
role that IRRI needs to play in terms of delivery
and development. There is a continuing debate
as to the role that international centers such as
IRRI should play in terms of development
activities. IRRI is very clear on this.
1. IRRI’s primary focus is research, but a
research cycle should include successful
application of the science and feedback from
end-users, and should not finish before this.
2. In collaboration with NARES partners, IRRI
seeks to validate and evaluate technology
with the ultimate beneficiaries.
3. IRRI does not move to fill development
voids, but rather seeks to work with develop-
ment organizations to test technologies and
develop delivery methodologies that allow for
the effective communication of options to a
wider group of beneficiaries.
Thus, the rationale for IRRI involvement in
delivery at the field level is that
• there is NARES commitment (to ensure
sustainability of effort),
• public goods such as knowledge or principles
that can be applied elsewhere are generated,
• NARES human resources for sustainability
and impact are developed, and
• efforts feed into the development efforts of
other partners.
To highlight this approach, IRRI RD&D
embraces “research for development” that keeps
the institutional focus on research while recog-
nizing the need for the research to be used.
IRRI’s role therefore includes facilitating,
understanding, and documenting delivery.
IRRI’s actual involvement in a country will
depend on a range of factors such as need,
opportunity, potential for success and impact,
spillover effects, and comparative
advantage. The need for use of research
means that IRRI works with but does
not replace development partners.
Target and means of delivery
In considering IRRI’s desire to increase impact,
we need to consider what are the products
produced, who are the target groups, and what
25
are the means of delivery to these groups (Table
11). Because of the range of products, impact
will take on different forms (Table 12).
The research cycle can be defined to include
problem identification, participatory research,
delivery, and evaluation (including monitoring,
feedback, and impact assessment). Research
requires relevance—it must meet the needs of
the target group and be not only beneficial but
also perceived to be beneficial. Thus, farmers’
perceptions and incentives need to be integral
parts of a research agenda. To avoid disciplinary
research in isolation and to ensure research
relevance and efficiency, the “content-process-
local knowledge” framework provides a robust
model:
• Content refers to the researcher and knowl-
edge and understanding of the technology
• Process refers to the delivery of the knowl-
edge—packaging and presentation
• Local knowledge refers to the inclusion in
the process of local input to ensure rel-
evance and feedback to ensure that needs
are matched with opportunities that consider
local circumstances, contacts, and suitability
of technology fit.

Table 11. Summary of IRRI products, target groups, and means of delivery.

Products Means of delivery Targets

Germplasm Networks Donors

Technology Scientist to scientist Media
Knowledge Consortia General public
• Policy Training NARES
• Decision support • Short course • Research
systems or tools • On-the-job • Extension
Methodologies • Degree • NGOs
• Research techniques Postgraduate Private
• Priority setting Media Advanced research institutes
• Needs assessment Publications Farmers
• Opportunity analysis Web Farmers’ groups
Impact assessment
Prototypes
Awareness/image
Information
Institutional strengthening

Table 12. Forms of impact from efforts of an international

organization.

Research Introduce new paradigms in research approach

Adopt new research and analytical methods
Use generic materials in breeding of new cultivars

Policy Change policy

Establish new regulations
Develop systems to facilitate adoption

Extension system Use products and knowledge in extension

Adopt new information delivery approaches

Farmers Practice change

Increase productivity
Reduce health risks

26
 The figure below highlights the need for
interaction, but also indicates that there should be
opportunities for independent action.
Content
Knowledge
Relevance
Delivery
Local
Process knowledge
When applied, based on Table 13, this simple
model clearly demonstrates to collaborators
within a system what their roles are and how
they can function together to increase the
efficiency of their research and delivery system.
It helps clearly identify which areas need
collaboration, which areas are lacking, and which
areas can be pursued independently. It recog-
nizes that people are the key to success and all
have a role to play in successful delivery. By
focusing on the process, discussion concentrates
on meeting needs. This methodology has been
tested in various scenarios and repeatedly
provides a simple and successful comprehensible
model. This simple format ensures that
1. True opportunities are recognized,
2. Real needs versus interests are pursued, and
3. All steps in the delivery process are consid-
ered.
Although the model provides the framework,
other partnership factors need to be considered
in successful delivery. In studying various
Table 13. Factors involved in ensuring research relevance.
Problem Cause(s) Options Content
specialists/role
projects, several issues have emerged as critical
in selecting partners, including
1. Project driver: Someone from one of the
organizations must assume a leadership role
in the project. This person (or persons)
should coordinate project activities and hold
ultimate responsibility for having each
partner perform his or her tasks or deliver
project inputs on time and at the level of
quality required.
2. Work with “winners”: Winners tend to be
self-motivated. These local partners provide
the drive to keep the project going.
3. Trust and respect: In the end, projects
depend on people and their ability to work
together. Thus, trust and respect are critical.
It takes time and shared experiences to build
trust and establish the confidence that each
partner has the good of the project and each
other at heart.
4. Develop project goals collectively, explic-
itly, and openly: Common vision and goals
are keys to success. Engage all the collabo-
rating organizations in the development of
project goals and guiding principles with
proactive efforts to explain the project to
potential critics. Project partners should
define project milestones and set up a
system for monitoring project implementation
and performance.
5. Capacity building: Develop skills and
confidence to understand and promote the
technology in appropriate ways.
6. Technology: The technology must meet a
real perceived need and must be simplified
with only the critical components presented.
7. Money: Good programs and powerful
partnerships will fail without the financial
resources to carry out program activities.
Money allows the implementation of good-
will.
Process Local knowledge Modifiers/
players/role players/role considerations
27
8. No freebees: Participants must contribute
some of their own resources in some form.
9. Institutional stability and commitment:
Groups must have financial, personnel, and
institutional and organizational stability.
Participating organizations must ensure “buy-
in” at the top, the middle, and the bottom.
Individual self-interest or egos can override
any institutional commitment to partnerships.
10. Transaction costs: Considerable transaction
costs are involved in establishing and main-
taining collaborative working relationships.
11. Private- and public-sector perspectives:
Expect differences in the organizational
cultures of partners from different sectors.
These differences can cause difficulties and
they need to be considered in the design of
the project and the strategy for carrying it
out. Working with the private sector typically
introduces a sense of urgency—one of the
advantages of such linkages.
12. Change and dealing with fallout: When
proposing and carrying out change, it is
common that the status quo is upset and
vested interests may feel threatened.
Opposition to change derives from several
motives, such as opposition to change per se,
opposition to or misunderstanding of the
project objectives or approach, or different
agendas (e.g., political or individual attacks).
Recognize, also, that multi-sector partner-
ships involve organizations with their own
histories and prejudices may already exist on
the part of some critics. In formulating
project responses to criticism, it is important
to consider the underlying motivation for the
criticism. These considerations highlight the
importance of examining (1) how to bring as
many sectors/organizations on board and (2)
how to avoid unfounded or unnecessary
criticism while responding to genuine con-
cerns in developing partnerships.
Web database sites
World Bank database: http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.html
FAO database: http://www.fao.org/
The World Factbook (CIA): http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
28
To achieve impact, IRRI has to facilitate the
communication of viable options to and with
the target group. This necessitates good
problem and opportunity analysis, clear
identification of the beneficiaries and their
needs and perceptions, and understanding of
effective presentation and delivery mecha-
nisms. A three-part framework has been
established to facilitate this.
Bibliography
Hossain M. 1996. Recent developments in the
Asian rice economy: challenges for rice
research. In: Evenson RE, Herdt RW,
Hossain M, editors. Rice research priorities
in Asia: progress and priorities. CAB Inter-
national in association with the International
Rice Research Institute.
IRRI. 1995. World rice statistics 1993-1994. Los
Baños (Philippines): International Rice
Research Institute.
World Resources. 1998. 1998-99 world re-
sources: a guide to the global environment,
environmental change and human health. A
joint publication of The World Resources
Institute, The United Nations Environment
Programme, The United Nations Develop-
ment Programme, and The World Bank.
Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
UNDP (United Nations Development
Programme). Human development report
1999. Oxford (UK): Oxford University
Press.
Appendix 1. Groupings and modes of collaboration
from previous medium-term plan.
Group characteristics
Group 1
• Usually large rice-growing countries (>2 million ha)
• Well-developed national research institutions covering
the major rice-growing regions and ecosystems
• Scientists trained to the Ph.D. level in each of the major
disciplines related to rice
• Relatively long history of collaboration (>10 years)
with IRRI in strategic research areas
• One or more universities that have graduate programs
to Ph.D. level
Examples: Bangladesh, India, China
Group 2
• Usually medium to large rice-growing countries
(>500,000 ha)
• Established national research institutions covering
the major rice-growing regions and ecosystems
• Scientists trained to the M.S. level in most major
disciplines related to rice
• A history of collaboration with IRRI (>5 years)
in applied research areas
• One or more universities that have graduate
programs to the M.S. level
Example: Vietnam
Group 3
• Usually small to medium rice-growing countries
(50,000 to 2 million ha)
• National research institutions newly established
or not yet established for the major rice-growing
regions and ecosystems
• Few scientists trained to the M.S. level in the key
disciplines related to rice
• Little or no history of research collaboration with IRRI
Example: Cambodia
Group 4
• Small rice-growing countries (<200,000 ha)
• Often distant from IRRI Los Baños
• Have national research institutions covering
the major disciplines related to rice
• History of participation in INGER
• One or more universities that have graduate
programs to the M.S. level
Example: Cuba
Group 5
• Small rice-growing countries (<200,000 ha)
• Often distant from IRRI Los Baños
• National research institutions newly established
or not yet established for the major rice-growing
regions and ecosystems
• Few scientists trained to the M.S. level in the
key disciplines related to rice
• Little or no history of research collaboration with IRRI
Example: Zambia
Mode and strategies of collaboration
• Major emphasis is on the development of strategic and
applied research capacities
• Major mode of strengthening is research collaboration
through research consortia and bilateral NARS-IRRI
programs
• Training emphasis is more on strategic and applied research
• Less emphasis on activities related to evaluation, adaptation,
and delivery of research products as they can be met by
NARS’ own capacity
• Require a balance of activities to support strategic and
applied research and the evaluation, adaptation, and delivery
of research products
• Greater emphasis is placed on evaluation, adaptation, and
delivery of research products through injection of large
bilateral donor support, which has been facilitated through
IRRI
• As they improve their capacities, they become members of
research consortia
• Being distant from IRRI Los Baños, a low-cost approach is
being used for meeting their needs, mostly through
participation in technology evaluation networks or regional
programs or networks
• For stronger NARS, IRRI Los Baños provides limited support
through advanced degree programs and focused upstream
training
• Minimal personnel support from IRRI Los Baños
• Being distant from IRRI Los Baños, a low-cost approach is
being used for meeting their needs, mostly through
participation in technology evaluation networks or regional
programs or networks
• For stronger NARS, IRRI Los Baños provides limited support
through advanced degree programs and focused upstream
training
• Minimal personnel support from IRRI Los Baños
29
Appendix 2. Ten features of a good country-
assistance strategy.
(from World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/html/pic/cas/tenfeat.htm)

1. Client focus. A good country-assistance strategy (CAS) is grounded in the country’s political, economic, and social
context. It starts with a discussion of country conditions and the government’s priorities and development strategy. It
includes an evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of ongoing reform programs, their implications for
private-sector development and sustainable growth and development, and their social impact. It is carried by strong
country ownership and broad stakeholder consultation (pursued with prior general agreement of the government), but
candidly acknowledges differences between the Bank and the authorities.

2. Strategic selectivity. A good CAS is the central vehicle for making strategic choices in country program design and
Bank resource allocation, with the objective of maximizing development impact. This involves (i) assessing the relative
magnitude and likelihood of the impact of alternative Bank group activities on the ground; (ii) taking into account the
Bank’s comparative advantage vis-à-vis others, track record, costs, and risks; and (iii) prioritizing activities across and
within sectors and by instruments (product mix) accordingly.

3. Poverty focus. A good CAS includes a high-quality diagnosis of the profile and causes of poverty. It links the proposed
Bank program clearly to the poverty assessment and explains how key lending and nonlending services contribute to
poverty reduction.

4. Macroeconomic and external framework. A good CAS is based on a strong analysis of macroeconomic performance,
prospects, and risks. It discusses the external environment and implications for the country’s development agenda and
vulnerability and the Bank program.

5. Governance and institutions. A good CAS diagnoses governance/corruption, institutional effectiveness, and
implementation capacity issues and, where relevant, addresses them in the proposed Bank lending or nonlending
program.

6. Self-evaluation and lessons from experience. A good CAS includes a frank discussion of the track record of Bank
involvement, a thorough and candid portfolio analysis, and “lessons learned.” It fully integrates findings from the
Operations Evaluation Department (OED), Quality Assurance Group (QAG), and self-evaluation studies.

7. Comparative advantage and role of the Bank. A good CAS is based on strong coordination and collaboration with
external partners (IMF, multilateral development banks, bilaterals, private sector, NGOs, etc.). It includes a Bank lending
and nonlending program and involves a division of labor with others in line with the comparative advantage of the Bank
and its partners in supporting the client country.

8. Collaboration within Bank group. A good CAS integrates an IBRD/IDA strategy into a consistent overall Bank group
strategy, within which IBRD/IDA, International Finance Corporation (IFC), and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA) operations complement each other in promoting private-sector development.

9. Bank program scenarios, triggers, and monitoring indicators. A good CAS includes (i) well-differentiated scenarios for
Bank assistance (low, base, high case), with a strong link between performance and aid effectiveness and the level of
Bank support; (ii) specific, monitorable triggers for switching between scenarios that focus on key reform challenges;
and (iii) clear, monitorable indicators for evaluating the development effectiveness of the Bank program.

10. Risks. A good CAS thoroughly treats risks to the country (economic-financial, both domestic and external, political,
social, and environmental) and to the Bank (exposure/financial as well as reputational), proposes risk mitigation
measures, and candidly recognizes the risk to the Bank.

30