Analysis and Recommendations
AGR/TAC:IAR/93/11
CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TAC SECRETARIAT
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
September 1993
Alex F. McCalla
Chair
6 September 1993
Dear Mr. Rajagopalan
I am pleased to submit to you TAC's recommendations for allocation of CGIAR resources during 1994-98. This completes the process of linking CGIAR priorities and strategies with resource allocation. The recommendations provide TAC's views on the medium-term plan proposals submitted by the CGIAR centres to implement the priorities and strategies endorsed by the Group at MTM'92 in Istanbul, Turkey. As you are aware since MTM'92, the centres, TAC and the Group have been involved in an interactive process on these plans. The consideration of these recommendations by the Group will be the final step in this process, leading to resource allocation decisions at ICW'93 to guide the implementation of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies over the period 1994-98.
Consistent with the decision of the Group at ICW'91, the TAC recommendations are based on a projected 1998 funding support for core programmes of US$ 270 million, in 1992 dollars. This level of funding support, maintains the 1992 pledges in real terms, except for a modest increase for forestry and fisheries. Obviously this does not represent the totality of the high payoff research opportunities at CGIAR centres. In this respect, the report identifies additional investment opportunities if a higher funding level were to become available. However, to inject realism in this planning, the report suggests an annual progression starting from the present 1993 funding levels to reach the proposed 1998 level. For 1994 therefore TAC recommends core funding support of US$ 229 million in 1992 dollars or US$ 248 million in current dollars.
Mr. V. Rajagopalan
Chairman, CGIAR
World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC
20433 USA
Mail address: Technical Advisory Comm/CGIAR, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Tel: (916) 752-8648/8649 - Telex: 4900010239 UCD UI - FAX (916) 752-8572
Office Location: 219 E St., Suite 2C, Davis, CA
TAC has addressed the concerns expressed by some donors of the programme implications of funding below the recommended levels. TAC is convinced that lower funding levels if sustained over the 1994-98 period will require that discussions of alternatives for CGIAR programme and institutional restructuring presented in the context of 2010 (Chapter 11 of the CGIAR Expansion report considered at ICW91) be advanced.
The resource allocation recommendations are therefore accompanied by a revision of Chapter 13 of the CGIAR Priorities and Strategies paper (MTM'92 dated 15 April 1992) which proposes a mechanism for looking at the structural options and alternative strategies available to the CGIAR. This revision has benefited from the extensive consultations that have taken place over the last twelve months regarding the ecoregional approach to research - a key principle in the proposed restructuring of the CGIAR.
You will also note that TAC has made two types of recommendations on funding in the CGIAR: centre specific funding, and programme funding for particular CGIAR Systemwide initiatives. With respect to programme funding, TAC has identified convening centres which will have an initiating and facilitating role, and which, in partnership with collaborating institutions, will develop proposals for joint programmes. TAC would be willing to receive these proposals if so requested by the Group. TAC recognizes the innovative but experimental nature of such programme funding and that many issues, for example with respect to accountability, have still to be resolved. However, TAC strongly believes that programme funding would provide an attractive and innovative mechanism to promote partnerships among centres, national programmes and other actors in the global agricultural research systems.
Mr. Chairman these reports represent the culmination of a concentrated and arduous process. They provide TAC's collective views and recommendations of priorities, strategies and resource allocation in the CGIAR. I would like to thank TAC members for their dedication and commitment throughout this exercise. I would like to publicly acknowledge the contributions of the staff of both the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. Special recognition must be given to the enormous contributions that Guido Gryseels, TAC Secretariat, and Jean-Pierre Jacqmotte and Ravi Tadvalkar, CGIAR Secretariat, made to the analytical work throughout the process and to the writing of this report. I wish to stress the excellent cooperation and team spirit among members of the two Secretariats.
We look forward to the discussion at ICW'93. Hopefully our efforts will facilitate a constructive dialogue and useful conclusions.
Yours sincerely,
A.F. McCalla
TAC Chair
Summary
This report concludes TAC's review of CGIAR priorities and strategies for research on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and the linking of these to resource allocation for the medium-term period 1994-98. It thus completes the report presented to, and endorsed by, the Group at MTM'921, in that it presents TAC's recommendations to the CGIAR for resource allocation for the System as a whole, for individual centres, and for Systemwide programmes. These recommendations are presented to the Group at ICW'93, as the basis for decision making in implementing CGIAR priorities and strategies in the medium term, and for approval of centre and programme funding requirements between 1994 and 1998.
¹TAC/CGIAR, 1992. Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. Parts I and II. TAC Secretariat, FAO, Rome.
The resource allocation process was undertaken in the framework of TAC developing its views on CGIAR priorities and strategies. In this process, TAC used a comprehensive analytical framework for setting priorities which facilitated the linking of resource allocation within the CGIAR to the priorities. Consistent with these priorities, TAC proposed, and the CGIAR endorsed, a tentative core resource envelope for 1998 for each centre. These indicative envelopes were subsequently used by the centres as planning guidelines in developing their Medium-Term Plan (MTP) proposals. Centre proposals were presented to TAC and the CGIAR, allowing both to raise issues to which the centres could respond. Progress in the resource allocation process was presented and discussed at a TAC/CGIAR Workshop in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in May 1993. Finally, at TAC 61, the Committee simultaneously considered all centres' MTP proposals and any additional information provided by the centres. It reconciled the MTP proposals with the System priorities and allocated resources accordingly by proceeding through a number of steps.
First, TAC evaluated the relevance of each centre's indicative resource envelope in close reference to the CGIAR priorities as views on both priorities and envelopes might have evolved since MTM'92 when they were agreed upon. In this step, the Committee took into account centres' MTP proposals and supplementary information, as well as recent internal and external developments in the CGIAR, and determined if a change in the level of resources tentatively assigned to each centre would be justified. This comprehensive review, comprising all centres, completed TAC's discussion of CGIAR priorities. comprehensive review, comprising all centres, completed TAC's discussion of CGIAR priorities.
Second, TAC evaluated the MTP proposal of each centre in accordance with a set of five equally-weighted criteria: the strategic character of the centre's proposed research programme; the programme's potential for breakthroughs; centre's past performance and likelihood of sustained success; the centre's external environment, institutional health and quality of management; and, finally, the centre's collaboration with NARS, other IARCs and advanced institutions.
Third, TAC reconciled the outcome of these two evaluations, the first, largely priority- and demand-driven and the second, largely supply/institution-driven, in a step towards assigning core resources to individual centres and to a number of CGIAR Systemwide initiatives. In this step, TAC considered the implications of the proposed allocations for the implementation of the overall System priorities. This was done at two aggregate levels of assumed core resources in 1998, i.e., US$ 270 million and US$ 280 million expressed in 1992 dollars.
Also, aware of the limitations inherent to MTPs being developed at centre level, TAC considered a number of inter-centre and System issues which were not adequately addressed, and formulated a number of recommendations of funding of Systemwide initiatives within the overall funding assumptions for 1998.
In response to a request expressed at the TAC/CGIAR May 1993 Workshop, TAC also considered the scenario of a significant, sustained shortfall in core funding in 1998, e.g., at 10% below the base level of US$ 270 million. Consistent with the views of participants in the Workshop, TAC concluded that the implications of such a scenario could not adequately be addressed by budgetary procedures only, such as across-the-board reductions: sustained under-funding would require structural adjustments of the CGIAR. Therefore, TAC concluded that the resource allocation process did not constitute the appropriate framework in which to explore and formulate System adjustments of a structural nature. Instead, the Committee decided to present to the Group a timed sequence of stripe reviews, of reviews of delivery mechanisms in the CGIAR and ad hoc reviews of possibilities of other structural adjustments. These reviews would be undertaken with a view to achieving the necessary savings, while assuring the maintenance of the System's integrity at a significantly lower level of core funding. The recommendations arising from these reviews could be implemented during the MTP period to the extent they will be accepted by the Group.
Recommendations of 1998 System Level Core Funding
TAC made two sets of recommendations on resource allocation across the System for the period, 1994-98. The first set was for allocations specific to all 18 CGIAR centres. The second set concerned a number of CGIAR Systemwide initiatives for which funding was recommended so that they could be undertaken on a collaborative basis, involving a number of CGIAR centres, national programmes and other relevant partners. Both sets of recommendations are summarized in Table S1.
|
Table S1: System Level Core Funding Recommendations (1998) (1992 US$ million) |
||
|
|
At US$ 270m. |
At US$ 280m. |
|
A. Centres |
||
|
Recommended Centres' Core Funding |
257.8 |
262.1 |
|
Provision for External Reviews |
1.2 |
1.2 |
|
Reserve for Fisheries |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
Sub-total Centres |
260.0 |
264.3 |
|
B. CGIAR Svstemwide Initiatives |
4.0 |
6.0 |
|
Ecoregional Programmes |
|
|
|
Genetic Resources Programme |
1.0 |
2.0 |
|
Livestock Programme |
4.0 |
4.8 |
|
Water Management Programme |
1.0 |
2.0 |
|
Fisheries Programme |
0.0 |
1.0 |
|
Sub-total Systemwide Initiatives |
10.0 |
15.71 |
|
Total Recommended Core Funding |
US$ 270.0 |
US$ 280.0 |
1Totals may not add due to rounding.
Recommendations of 1998 Centre Core Funding
TAC's recommendations on 1998 centre core funding, at the aggregate System levels of US$270 million and US$280 million (expressed in 1992 dollars) are summarized in Table S2. The Table also lists the indicative envelope assigned to each centre in March 1992 and TAC's recommended 1994 core funding for each of the eighteen centres. Centre core funding levels for 1992 and 1993 are also presented for comparison purposes.
TAC's rationale and arguments for each of the recommended allocations are presented, centre by centre, in Chapter 4 of this report.
Recommendations for 1998 Core Funding of CGIAR Systemwide Programmes
In the review of centre MTP proposals, TAC identified a number of programmes that were put forward by more than one centre, mostly with cross reference to each other but not necessarily in a orderly or consistent way. In this respect, the Committee considered the need to promote collaboration not only among CGIAR centres, but also with national programmes and other relevant institutions.
Also, TAC noted that the medium-term resource allocation process was limited in its ability to deal adequately with concerns of System interest and transcending individual centre interests.
On that basis, the Committee identified eight ecoregional and four other Systemwide initiatives which it recommends for funding on a Systemwide programme basis within the 1994-98 medium-term period. TAC's recommended core funding for these programmes are also shown in Table S2. These resources would be intended to catalyse inter-centre collaboration in the planning and initiation of the specified global and ecoregional programmes. TAC selected the individual programmes listed in close reference to Chapter 13 of the Report on Priorities and Strategies, and to pertinent global and ecoregional research proposals contained in the centres' MTPs. TAC's rationale in selecting the eight ecoregional and four global programmes in question is outlined in Section 3.1.2.
Follow-Up
This report will be discussed at ICW'93 by the Group as the basis for decision-making on the implementation of the CGIAR priorities and strategies during the 1994-98 period, and on funding requirements during the same period of centres and Systemwide programmes. The latter would allow centres to finalize their medium-term plans and 1994 programmes of work and budget.
Table S2: Recommended 1994 and 1998 Core Funding Requirements with Historical Comparisons (in constant 1992 US$ Millions)
|
A. CENTRES |
1992 |
1993 Estimate (June 1993) |
Base Envelope Assigned in March 1992 |
Recomm. 1994 Core Funding |
Recommended 1998 Core Funding |
||||||
|
Chap. 14 Estimate |
Actual |
in'92$ |
in '93$ |
At US$ 270 m |
At US$ 280m |
||||||
|
CIAT |
26.5 |
26.9 |
24.4 |
25.4 |
27.5 |
25.0 |
27.5 |
28.3 |
|||
|
CIFOR |
3.4 |
3.2 |
4.9 |
5.1 |
7.6 |
5.3 |
7.6 |
7.6 |
|||
|
CIMMYT |
25.6 |
26.1 |
22.6 |
23.5 |
24.1 |
23.3 |
26.5 |
26.5 |
|||
|
CIP |
15.2 |
15.3 |
14.3 |
15.0 |
14.3 |
14.3 |
14.3 |
14.3 |
|||
|
IPGRI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
IBPGR |
7.4 |
9.1 |
8.5 |
8.8 |
8.4 |
8.6 |
9.2 |
10.7 |
|||
|
INIBAP |
2-2 |
1.8 |
1.7 |
1-8 |
2.1 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
|||
|
Sub-total |
9.6 |
10.8 |
10.2 |
10.6 |
10.5 |
10.3 |
11.0 |
12.5 |
|||
|
ICARDA |
18.9 |
17.9 |
13.0 |
13.5 |
17.6 |
13.8 |
17.6 |
17.6 |
|||
|
ICLARM |
4.0 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
4.4 |
4.8 |
4.4 |
4.8 |
4.8 |
|||
|
ICRAF |
11.9 |
11.1 |
11.4 |
11.9 |
15.6 |
11.9 |
14.0 |
14.0 |
|||
|
ICRISAT |
27.7 |
27.3 |
25.0 |
26.0 |
26.9 |
25.4 |
26.9 |
27.9 |
|||
|
IFPRI |
8.3 |
8.3 |
7.8 |
8.1 |
8.6 |
8.1 |
9.5 |
9.5 |
|||
|
IIMI |
7.3 |
6.4 |
6.0 |
6.2 |
7.6 |
6.3 |
7.6 |
7.6 |
|||
|
IITA |
77.7 |
21.7 |
20.3 |
21.1 |
22.2 |
20.8 |
23.3 |
23.3 |
|||
|
Livestock Centre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
ILCA |
19.4 |
15.8 |
11.7 |
12.1 |
14.0 |
12.1 |
14.0 |
14.0 |
|||
|
ILRAD |
12.6 |
12.6 |
9.7 |
10.1 |
9.1 |
9.9 |
11.1 |
11.1 |
|||
|
Sub-total |
32.0 |
28.4 |
21.3 |
22.2 |
23.1 |
22-0 |
25.1 |
25.1 |
|||
|
IRRI |
28.3 |
28.6 |
24.6 |
25.6 |
25.8 |
25.5 |
29.4 |
29.4 |
|||
|
ISNAR |
6.6 |
7.0 |
5.9 |
6.2 |
6.8 |
6.1 |
6.8 |
7.8 |
|||
|
WARDA |
6.2 |
5.8 |
4.9 |
5.1 |
5.8 |
5.1 |
5.8 |
5.8 |
|||
|
TOTAL |
253.8 |
249.2 |
220.8 |
229.8 |
248.8 |
227.7 |
257.8 |
262.1 |
|||
|
External Review |
1.2 |
|
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
|||
|
Provision Allocatable |
|
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
|||
|
Reserve Reserve for Fisheries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
1.0 |
|||
|
CENTRES TOTAL |
255.0 |
249.2 |
221.7 |
230.7 |
270.0 |
228.9 |
260-0 |
264.3 |
|||
|
B. CGIAR SYSTEMWIDE PROGRAMMES |
|||||||||||
|
Ecoregional Programmes in: |
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Sub - Saharan Africa: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Subhumid & Humid Ecoreg. Programme |
|
|
|
|
0.50 |
0.70 |
|||||
|
Semi-Arid Ecoregional Programme |
|
|
|
|
0.50 |
0.65 |
|||||
|
Highlands Ecoregional Programme |
|
|
|
|
0.25 |
0.75 |
|||||
|
Sub-total |
|
|
|
|
1.25 |
2.10 |
|||||
|
WANA |
|
|
|
|
0.40 |
0.53 |
|||||
|
Asia: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Semi-Arid Ecoregional Programme |
|
|
|
|
0.40 |
0.53 |
|||||
|
Subhumid & Humid Ecoreg. Programme |
|
|
|
|
0.70 |
0.90 |
|||||
|
Sub-total |
|
|
|
|
1.10 |
1.43 |
|||||
|
LAC |
|
|
|
|
0.75 |
0.95 |
|||||
|
Cross-region Slash & Bum Programme |
|
|
|
|
0.50 |
1.00 |
|||||
|
Sub-Total |
|
|
|
|
4.00 |
6.00 |
|||||
|
Genetic Resources Programme |
|
|
|
|
1.00 |
2.00 |
|||||
|
Livestock Programme |
|
|
|
|
4.00 |
4.75 |
|||||
|
Water Management Programme |
|
|
|
|
1.00 |
2.00 |
|||||
|
Fisheries Programme |
|
|
|
|
|
1.00 |
|||||
|
TOTAL CGIAR SYSTEMWIDE PROGRAMMES |
|
|
|
|
10.00 |
15.75 |
|||||
|
TOTAL SYSTEM |
255.0 |
249.2 |
221.7 |
230.7 |
270.0 |
228.9 |
270.0 |
280.0 |
|||
