The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) are the two institutions of CGIAR that have been working for a long time in Bangladesh. As I mentioned in some of my earlier writings in this column, both IRRI and IFPRI played pivotal role in the improvement of rural livelihoods and food security through their funding of National Agricultural Research System (NARS) as well as through their researches on issues that affect food production and food security.

Impact of rice research

What had been the contribution of agricultural research in general and rice in particular? A straightjacket answer to this question would, perhaps, be very difficult since some of the contributions are directly quantifiable while others remain absolutely qualitative in nature (unless imputed to value). However, from economists' point of view, a commonly used method of estimating the returns from investment is the economic surplus approach. This approach estimates the benefits from research in terms of changes in consumer and producer surplus resulting from the technological change. Benefits are then related to research cost to estimate net present value, or benefit-cost ratio and internal rates of return. Admittedly, to my mind, there was no attempt to identify the costs and returns from investment excepting the one done by Dr Mahabub Hossain (of IRRI). Hossain applied economic surplus approach to determine the costs and benefits of rice researches in Bangladesh.

What has been the impact of the technology initiated by IRRI on the cost of producing rice? First, the yield rate of rice, reportedly, increased: modern aman varieties have 56 per cent higher yield than traditional aman. And modern boro rice has 175 per cent higher yield than traditional aus rice. The primary benefit of technological progress has, therefore, been reaped in the form of cost savings from rice production. Second, there have also been indirect benefits to the society. For example, the government has saved scarce foreign exchange that might otherwise have been spent for imports of food. As we know, there has been a decline in food imports since 1980s and Bangladesh is almost on the verge of food grain self-sufficiency. The net benefit to the society per unit of the additional output is the difference between the acquisition cost (c.i.f price) of imported rice over the unit cost of producing rice internally.

According to Hossain, the total benefits were USD 13,040 million during 1973-93 periods, or an average of USD 652 million/yr. The total cost saving in rice production was USD 5,975 million or an average of USD 229 million/yr. If the benefits had been held in bank or on bonds at a 10 per cent rate of interest per annum, the present value of the benefits would have perked at USD 14.3 billion in cost saving and USD 33.5 billion in total benefits.

How does that compare with costs of development and transfer of technology? During the time the estimates were to be done, Government of Bangladesh invested, on average, about USD 2.1 million/yr for rice research. In addition, funding agencies channeled USD 1.5 million/yr to rice research through IRRI-BRRI collaborative project. Another USD 14.5 million was spent annually by the DAE for technology transfer. The total investment was thus USD 18 million/yr. The benefit-cost ratio for the investment in rice research and technology transfer is estimated to be 16.6 if only the cost saving in rice production is considered. There were additional benefits in the form of foreign exchange savings, as argued earlier.

The government allocated, on average, USD 2.1 million/yr for rice research, which was complemented by an additional 75 per cent of funds, channeled by funding agencies through BRRI/IRRI. This significantly developed the skills of BRRI scientists through graduate training and helped improve laboratory facilities and other research infrastructure. The development of "human capital" in the realm of agricultural researches that IRRI/BIRRI collaboration brought about remains as "bonus" or spill-over benefits for Bangladesh. Hardly quantifiable but easily imaginable.

Rice research and poverty

Two large-scale surveys at household level show a significant improvement in poverty between 1987 and 1994, the period of rapid technological progress. Another study covering 62 villages for 1987 and 2000 also revealed the same kind of information. Although the growth of agricultural production was much less impressive than in the non-agricultural rural non-farm sector (a product of the green revolution itself) land and labour productivity rose at an impressive rate suggesting a favourable trend in total factor productivity. The cost savings in rice production and faster growth in rice supply compared with population growth have contributed to a fall in rice prices by about 1.6 per cent a year. Needless to mention perhaps that the decline in the real prices of rice largely benefited landless and the poor segment in both rural and urban areas.

Paying for penny

While Bangladesh reaps home rich dividends from technology and researches of CGIAR institutions, reportedly, she continues to be a non-paying member of the CGIAR. CGIAR membership requires annual subscription from participating countries. The other day I heard from my learned Indian colleagues that Indian agricultural ministry, reportedly, proposed a rise of the amount of subscription for CGIAR to about $10 million a year (from 7-800 thousand now). The increment is suggested to make a stronger presence of India in CGIAR meetings. However, we fail to understand why Bangladesh should not be a paid member of the CGIAR. Of course, there was a time when Bangladesh could hardly afford to pay for membership -- a time when Bangladesh had to move for food aid to feed teeming millions. But over the years, Bangladesh has gained resilience in terms of food production and food security and emerged as an example in the group gaining self-sufficiency in food grain. The achievement should be adduced mostly to the activities of the CGIAR institutions. Both IRRI and IFPRI played a positive role.

We feel that Bangladesh government should now pay the membership fees every year and should "earn" its voice in the deliberations of the CGIAR. We reckon that the yearly subscription could be half a million dollar or Tk. 3 core or so. This is miniscule in terms of the costs but would, possibly, raise the image of the country substantially in the international forum. There is a saying that a free lunch (if exists at all!) does not guarantee the quality of the food nor does it accept any allegation from the "free rider". Let's pay, partly at least, for the penny that we earn or save through the stewardships of CGIAR institutions and make ourselves proud of being a paid member.

We only hope that agriculture and finance ministries would pay their kind attention to this aspect.

Abdul Bayes is Professor of economics at Jahangirnagar University.