3.1 Introduction
3.2 Poverty Weighted Shares
3.3 Qualitative Considerations
3.4 Centre Recommendations
This Chapter deals with recommendations for resource allocations among centres and focuses on the year 2000. Discussion during TAC 72 gave convincing evidence of centre efforts to capitalize further on new science and to extend the pattern of working relationships to include those engaged in complementary and supplementary activities. TAC's view is that support should be available from Member and centre sources to permit total expenditures of US$ 400 million (in nominal dollars). Assuming that the present modest rates of inflation continue to prevail, this is an increase of 2% per year in real terms over the expenditures estimated for 1997.
TAC's recommendations for 2000 were first written in terms of percentages (with the idea of subsequent translation into dollars) of total expenditure by the System. For some centres the percentage increased while for others it decreased. An immediate question is the rate at which centres move from their current position to the position recommended for the year 2000. TAC agreed that, in order to more effectively accommodate the changes envisioned, the rate should accelerate over the period, leading to the recommendation that the movement be 10% of the total by 1998, an additional 30% of the total by 1999, and the remaining 60% in 2000.
During the course of TAC 72 it was reaffirmed that the Committee's recommendations should pertain to the proportions expended on activities by the System as a whole and to the amounts expended by individual centres. TAC sees itself as having less influence on how each centre finally distributes its expenditures across activities. In this area centre management is better able to accommodate emerging opportunities and TAC's role is that of providing guidelines and rationales for negotiations between centres and members. (For a more detailed discussion, see Chapter 5 in the paper entitled CGIAR Priorities and Strategies 1997, hereafter P&S97.) Even so, TAC must incorporate its concerns for activities into its recommendations about budgets for centres.
The following paragraphs briefly describe the major criteria applied, including the role of activities, and the judgement influencing the recommendations for sectors, commodities and centres. Discussion starts with quantitative and then moves to qualitative considerations.
The following paragraphs describe the major criteria applied and the judgements which influenced the recommendations for sectors, commodities, and centres. First, and manifesting the Group's concern for poverty alleviation and the Group's judgement that the current allocations are an appropriate point of departure for rebalancing resource allocations, TAC's attention focused on priorities associated with commodities, where the poverty indicator can be applied quantitatively for 13 of the centres. For each of these it was assumed that the initial element in setting priorities was the comparison between current allocations and the estimated poverty weighted share in 2010. (See Chapter 6 and Annex 2, P&S97.) The general rule followed by TAC for commodities (but see below for caveats) was to move half the distance between the current allocation and the allocation implied by the poverty weighted share.
While this was the guiding principle, examination of the price data suggested that aquatic products and forestry products were over valued relative to livestock and crops. For fish and forestry data on prices refer to actual market values while price data on crops and livestock have been adapted for purchase power parity differences among countries. FAO's standardized set only refers to the major crops and livestock products (see Annex 2 for references). The amount of the over valuation is simply not known, but it was not believed to be such that a poverty weighted share would fall below current allocations to either set of products. Moreover, it was recognized that, as relatively new entrants into the CGIAR, two of the associated centres are still in a growth phase relative to the rest of the System. ICRAF, on the other hand, has grown dramatically recently and, in its case, it was thought important that its further growth be limited in order to permit some consolidation and an analysis of broadly based impact or its near term promise. With that, and given the three centres budget projections to 2000, it was decided to allocated 4.2% to fisheries, an increase of 20% in its share and the allocation to forestry was set at 12.2%, an apparent increase of 24% in its share. However, according to recent estimates of ICRAF's 1997 budget, the sector will account for 10.5% of 1997 expenditures and, if so, the increase over actual expenditures in 1997 is 16%.
The livestock sector presented a further conundrum. TAC has long advocated an increase in its portion of CGIAR expenditures, which is well below its apparent poverty weighted share, but support has not been forthcoming. Moreover, in 1997, when it appeared that expenditures would reach 13.8% of the total (16.2% of the expenditures on commodities), there is evidence it will finish the year at just under 13%. TAC 72 concluded that recommended expenditures for 2000 should be two percent above the level in 1997, or 14.9%, assuming that the late April projection is borne out. While TAC would favour that level, it is well above that requested for 2000 by the centres engaged in research dealing directly with the sector. Discussion, which included the capacity to efficiently absorb a large inflow of funding and a commitment to carefully monitor impact, led to support for an allocation of 14.2% of the 2000 expenditure to livestock research.
With three sectors fixed largely through qualitative considerations, albeit guided by a sense of poverty weighted shares, TAC turned to crop commodities. In doing so, it was quickly noted that soybean seems dramatically under funded, but was recognized that this follows because work is limited to SSA, where the crop's importance is minuscule but potentially promising. These considerations suggested limiting soybean to its current share of expenditures. That done TAC established a guideline by applying the general rule to the remaining crop commodities. This led to the proportions seen in Column 2 of Table 1. (Note that Column 1 is repeated from Column 2, Table 2, Annex 2.)
In translating allocations for commodities to allocations to centres TAC followed the proportions implied by the expenditure pattern for 1997, i.e., if a centre had 25% of the total of a particular commodity in 1997, then it was assigned 25% of the expenditure on that crop in 2000. It will be seen later that for some crops and some centres those portions changed as a result of modifications implied by one or more of the qualitative variables shaping allocations. At this point it was necessary to decide what portion of the centre's budget would be associated with all commodities, e.g. what part of the expenditures allocated to training would be apportioned across crops. Except for cases in which it was clear that the outputs of a particular activity were generic, independent of the commodities of the centre, it was decided to apportion the entire centre budget among the commodities with which it worked. To assess the exceptions, TAC relied on a review of project descriptions undertaken by the CGIAR Secretariat.
Centre Level Considerations
The next step in the process was to carefully assess any other considerations that should be allowed for by TAC in recommending centre allocations for 1998-2000. This was done for changes since 1993 due to firstly, the recent emergence of changes in alternative sources of supply for the System's research and research-related services, and secondly the potential impact of new science on future probability of success in the CGIAR's fields of research. Then, since it had not been possible to include any quantitative measure of natural resources degradation in the modeling process, TAC reviewed this general area in search of qualitative evidence of differences in the nature, extent and likely future trend of resources degradation that would be significant at the inter-centre level of analysis.
Following that, TAC considered the apparent performance of each centre during the recent past and the case made by the centres in presenting their MTPs. Finally, some global obligations of the CGIAR, which impact more heavily on some centres than others, were taken into account.
These five elements are discussed further below. TAC's final recommendations on the proportions of the CGIAR financing plan to be allocated to individual centres in the year 2000 include a number of minor adjustments made to the figures implied by the earlier considerations. These adjustments represent the summation of TAC's collective judgements taking account of all the considerations discussed below.
Alternative sources of supply
While in the strict sense there are no exact alternatives to the CGIAR Centres as suppliers of research and research-related services to all the developing countries served by the Group, an increasing number of NARS are able to meet their own research needs and are willing to exchange knowledge and materials freely. This applies particularly to the large NARS of China, India and Brazil, but a number of smaller NARS in Asia and Latin America, and even in sub-Saharan Africa, have developed a significant national research capacity during the past five years. Moreover, the private seed and agricultural chemical companies are beginning to play a larger role as suppliers to developing countries.
To some extent, new science and alternative sources of supply tend to be positively related but, of course, with inverse effects. New science for specific commodities, for instance, tends to be more readily available where a number of NARS and ARIs are working actively on each of them. Conversely, often there is little new science available from outside that can be applied specifically to some tropical food crops of importance to poor people, for which the CGIAR is the major research provider.
TAC concluded that the availability of alternative sources of supply is a more potent factor than new science. New science improves the probability of success in the CGIAR's work, whereas real alternative sources of supply would obviate the need for the CGIAR to be involved at all. There was judged to be a spectrum of availability of alternative sources of supply for the work of centres from, at one extreme IPGRI, CIFOR and ICRAF that have few equivalents anywhere to ISNAR or IFPRI that work in fields where many other actors have a role to play.
TAC was influenced in its conclusions about some centres by the fact that their research agendas include commodities such as banana and plantain, and cassava in sub-Saharan Africa, for which alternative suppliers are relatively scarce, and coconut, lentil, and pigeonpea for which minimum critical mass in the CGIAR becomes a significant consideration. On the other hand, for centres involved with rice, especially in Asia, wheat, and maize in regions other than sub-Saharan Africa, there are relatively good alternative suppliers. For centres with the commodities mentioned, tentative budgets were adjusted in recognition of the presence or absence of alternative suppliers.
New Science
The major recent advances in science that have been described in Chapters 2 and 6 of the priorities and strategies document do not affect the probabilities of success in the research of all centres equally. Thus, new biology is applicable mainly to Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding in the crop, livestock, and in the future, fishery centres, whereas advances in remote sensing apply to all 14 centres whose research deals with large areas of land or water, and advances in information technology enhance the work of all centres that deal regularly with large data sets. All 16 centres certainly benefit from recent advances in global telecommunications and informatics.
After weighing up these and other considerations about new science and technology, including the fact that the "management" oriented centres are in a position to benefit from applications of social science that are not new to the parent disciplines but are new to agriculture, TAC concluded that there was some justification for adjusting the budgets of individual centres on the basis of different opportunities in new science. However, account has to be taken first of the weightings for new science that have been incorporated already in the activity percentages. Thus, the importance of new biology is already reflected in the 20% recommended for the CGIAR Undertaking 1.1; the combination of possibilities in remote sensing and GIS influenced the Committee's thinking on the percentage for Undertaking 2.2, the possibility of using existing knowledge of participatory decision-making and management science to advantage influenced the weight given to Undertaking 4, and so on.
After considering these various arguments, TAC concluded-that, although the differences were not always definitive, the centres that probably have relatively least to gain from advances in science, since 1993, include IFPRI, IIMI, IPGRI (for the most part), and ISNAR. Three others, CIFOR, ICLARM and ICRAF, form an intermediate group - while the remaining nine crop and livestock centres probably have relatively most to gain from new science.
There was also one special case. The emergence of a new variety of late blight fungus, with the capacity to readily produce more-pathogenic strains, has rendered many of the results of existing science obsolete, and given a new scientific importance to work in potato pathology in the CGIAR.
Natural Resources Management
While on first examination there appear to be differences between centres in the extent of, and likely future trends in, degradation of soil, water and vegetation resources within their geographical mandates, the evidence does not stand up to close scrutiny. Who can say with certainty that the degradation problems of the WANA region, which has been cropped and grazed for thousands of years, and where there is known to be significant degradation of scarce irrigation resources, are more serious for the achievement of the CGIAR's goals than the problems of the "green revolution" lands of Asia.
In the end, TAC has to concede that it is not possible to do more at present in targeting natural resources degradation in pursuit of the CGIAR goal than it has done already by the higher weightings given to the undertaking Protecting the Environment in 1996, and again at TAC 72. TAC considers the lack of good global data on the state of natural resources to be a major drawback in the priorities and strategies process.
Centre Performance and Plans
In reviewing the recent past, TAC noted evidence of performance. Included, were studies or statements about impact, about adoption of elements of improved technologies and about notable progress in specific areas. It was recognized that the record relates not just to centres but to other actors as well. The conclusions drawn influenced TAC's sense of the probability of future success. The MTPs were a source of information about recent developments; moreover, they give evidence of the avenues through which future successes might be achieved and of how the centres will deploy their resources to attain such successes.
Systemwide Concerns
TAC considered that by far the most important of the System's international obligations is. that for the conservation of biodiversity, with its attendant implications for IPGRI, which is the convenor for the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme. Others include the responsibilities of ICRISAT and ICARDA under the Desertification Convention. In future, CIFOR may incur obligations for forestry research on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.
As for budgets and expenditures, TAC notes that each centre's participation in Systemwide programmes is included in its budget and is presented in a special table dealing only with such work. Therefore, dealing with centre budgets includes dealing with commitments to Systemwide work. Second, by prior agreement with the Group, TAC will review this area in 1999, with special attention to its promise for gains, for example, via efficiencies and the capture of externalities, and its costs, for example, those for transactions.
Balancing the quantitative and qualitative elements, discussed earlier in this Chapter, led to budget shares reported upon in Chapters 5 and 6 of the 1997 Report on Priorities and Strategies, with respect to commodities, activities, and production sectors- These, in turn, allowed TAC to proceed in making centre-specific recommendations.
TAC has made resource allocation recommendations for each centre on the basis of a percentage of total expenditures of the CGIAR by the year 2000. The percentages have then been applied to a nominal amount of total expenditures of US$ 400 million for the CGIAR in the year 2000.
An overview of TAC's recommendations on centre expenditures and a comparison with the 1997 financing plan is provided in Table 1. Column 1 of Table 1 provides an estimate of 1997 centre expenditures; column 2 presents this 1997 information on a percentage basis; column 3 is TAC's recommended share of total expenditures for each centre; and column 4 the implied amount for a nominal total of US$ 400 million.
It is important to say a few words about what might happen were the budgets sufficient to support much larger or much smaller expenditures in the year 2000. While TAC 72 discussed this, it was not with the intent at arriving at precise measures of the levels of expenditures at which the proportions would require review. What emerged was the sense that the proportions are operative at a range of US$ 400 million (nominal) plus or minus 5% in 1997. dollars. That is to say, that if the available budget in the year 2000 is above (or below) US$ 400 million by more than that amount, TAC should review its recommendations.
Table 3.1: TAC Recommendations on Centre Expenditures by 2000]
|
|
1997 Financing Plan1) |
2000 Target |
||
|
$m |
% |
% |
$m |
|
|
(TAC Recommendation) |
(Implied amounts) |
|||
|
CIAT |
31.1 |
9.2% |
8.2% |
32.7 |
|
CIFOR |
11.3 |
3.3% |
4.1% |
16.5 |
|
CIMMYT |
32.4 |
9.6% |
8.8% |
35.3 |
|
CIP |
23.1 |
6.8% |
6.1% |
24.3 |
|
ICARDA |
25.1 |
7.4% |
7.3% |
29.2 |
|
ICLARM |
11.7 |
3.5% |
4.2% |
16.8 |
|
ICRAF2) |
17.2 |
5.1% |
6.1% |
24.3 |
|
ICRISAT |
28.6 |
8.4% |
7.6% |
30.2 |
|
IFPRI |
17.3 |
5.1% |
5.2% |
21.0 |
|
IIMI |
9.9 |
2.9% |
3.2% |
12.8 |
|
IITA |
28.1 |
8.3% |
8.5% |
34.0 |
|
ILRI3) |
30.3 |
9.0% |
9.3% |
37.0 |
|
IPGRI |
19.5 |
5.8% |
6.1% |
24.4 |
|
IRRI |
30.9 |
9.1% |
9.1% |
36.2 |
|
ISNAR |
10.9 |
3.2% |
3.1% |
12.3 |
|
WARDA |
11.1 |
3.3% |
3.3% |
13.1 |
|
TOTAL |
338.5 |
100.0% |
100.0% |
400.0 |
Notes:
1) CGIAR Secretarial, Financial Summary of 1998-2000 Centre Medium Term Plans, revised 9.4.97, Table 2.2) ICRAF expects significant increases of their actual 1997 financing plan by about $ 5 million.
3) Recent information indicates that actual 1997 funding of ILRI may be $ 3.5 million. below that figure. This would reduce ILRI's share to 6.0% of total.
CIAT
CIAT's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will go from 9.2% to 8.2%, implying an increase in dollar terms from US$ 31.1 million to an estimated US$ 32.7 million.
In the calculation of its poverty-weighted share (pws), CIAT went down for beans and cassava and up for pasture/livestock work. Their generic work on NRM also allowed for an increase. Alternative sources of supply for cassava outside sub-Saharan Africa further lowered their share for work on cassava. Positive factors in the financial consideration were the new science that led to increases in chances of success, but these opportunities were shared with other centres engaged in germplasm improvement.
CIFOR
CIFOR's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 3.3% to 4.1%, while in dollar terms, CIFOR's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 11.3 million to an estimated US$ 16.5 million, assuming total 2000 expenditures of US$ 400 million.
The increase in CIFOR's allocation is mostly due to the higher priority assigned to forestry research and the need to increase the share of the sector in overall CGIAR expenditures. CIFOR goes up also on the grounds of lack of alternative sources of supply and increased international responsibilities. Finally, the centre has made good progress over the past two years and its plan presents an appealing future.
CIMMYT
CIMMYT's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will go from 9.6% to 8.8%, implying an overall increase in dollars from US$ 32.4 million to an estimated US$ 35.3 million.
CIMMYT goes up moderately on pws for wheat and down on maize. As with other crop centres, CIMMYT benefits from the opportunities through new science that increases chances of success, and also for a good track record and a well-conceived plan. CIMMYT lost ground because of the opportunities through alternative sources of supply for maize, except in SSA, and wheat-
CIP
CIP's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will go from 6.8% to 6.1%, while in dollar terms, and assuming total expenditures of US$ 400 million, CIP's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 23.1 million to an estimated US$ 24.3 million.
CIP went down very strongly on pws for potato and sweet potato. It benefited from the need to allocate more resources to addressing the global late blight challenge, and, like other crop centres, from new science with increased chances of success. TAC was also very impressed by the quality of CIP's plan, and the logic and transparency of its priority-setting process and its connection with resource allocation.
ICARDA
ICARDA's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will go from 7.4% to 7.3%, while in dollar terms, ICARDA's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 25.1 million to an estimated US$ 29.2 million.
ICARDA is stable on pws as their commodities reflect a balance of favourable (livestock) and unfavourable (the remainder) directions. As with other crop centres, new science will affect their chances of success. There is no new information influencing alternative sources of supply and their ratings on performance and quality of plan are adequate.
ICLARM
ICLARM's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 3.5% to 4.2%, while in dollar terms, ICLARM's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 11.7 million to an estimated US$ 16.8 million.
ICLARM benefits strongly on the basis of increased priority assigned to fisheries research. There are few alternative sources of supply for their kind of work and efforts to reorient work have progressed well.
ICRAF
ICRAF's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 5.1% to 6.1%, while in dollar terms, ICRAF's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 17.2 million to an estimated US$ 24.3 million.
ICRAF benefits from the increased priority given to the forestry sector and from the lack of alternative sources of supply to agroforestry. TAC sees a need, however, for ICRAF to consolidate after a period of strong growth and for evidence of impact.
ICRISAT
ICRISAT's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will go from 8.4% to 7.6%, while in dollar terms, ICRISAT's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 28.6 million to an estimated US$ 30.2 million.
ICRISAT goes down moderately on pws for its commodities. It benefits from new science that increases chances of success like other crop centres, and for the quality of the plan. ICRISAT goes down on the grounds of alternative sources of supply, particularly in Asia.
IFPRI
IFPRI's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 5.1% to 5.2%, implying an increase in dollar terms, from US$ 17.3 million to an estimated US$ 21.0 million.
Overall, TAC recommended to maintain allocation of resources to policy research. IFPRI's track record, as well as reduced sources of supply for policy research, allowed for some growth.
IIMI
IIMI's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 2.9% to 3.2%, while in dollar terms, IIMI's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 9.9 million to an estimated US$ 12.8 million.
IIMI benefits from the increased priority assigned to water management research and the potential of the new paradigm it developed. TAC also hopes that IIMI's new mode of operation will increase its output of strategic research results and impact.
IITA
IITA's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 8.3% to 8.5%, while in dollar terms, IITA's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 28.1 million to an estimated US$ 34.0 million.
IITA goes down moderately on pws overall, but, like other crop centres, benefits from new science that increases chances of success for its commodities. IITA also has a good track record in a difficult area where food security is a major concern. The Institute also gains through lack of alternative sources of supply, particularly for banana and plantain and cassava in sub-Saharan Africa.
ILRI
ILRI's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 9.0% to 9.3%, while in dollar terms, ILRI's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 30.3 million to an estimated US$ 37.0 million.
ILRI benefits from the need to increase resources to livestock research on pws grounds. ILRI further benefits from new science that has greatly increased chances of success, particularly in animal health and feed research. The new global mandate of ILRI also asks for increased resources, particularly for an expansion of work in Asia.
IPGRI
IPGRI's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will increase from 5.8% to 6.1%, while in dollar terms, IPGRI's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 19.5 million to an estimated US$ 24.4 million.
The increase in share rests largely on the higher shares to banana, plantain, and coconut. IPGRI has been successful in establishing itself and in incorporating INIBAP, and there are few alternative sources of supply for its work. Now, lacing a different set of challenges, TAC considered that IPGRI should go through a period of consolidation and refocusing.
IRRI
IRRI's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will remain constant at 9.1%, while in dollar terms, IRRI's expenditures would increase during the corresponding period from US$ 30.9 million to an estimated US$ 36.2 million.
IRRI has no change due to pws but goes down considerably on the argument of increased alternative sources of supply for rice, particularly in Asia. It benefits like the other, crop centres from new science that increases further chances of success, and a good track record.
ISNAR
ISNAR's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will go from 3.2% to 3.1%, while in dollar terms, ISNAR's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 10.9 million to an estimated US$ 12.3 million.
ISNAR benefits from increased priority for research on institution building and on management, and goes down on alternative sources of supply for its service activities. Overall ISNAR remains stable pending the development of a strategic plan and a revised MTP for 1999-2000.
WARDA
WARDA's share in overall CGIAR expenditures between 1997 and 2000 will remain constant at 3.3%, while in dollar terms, WARDA's expenditures during the corresponding period would increase from US$ 11.1 million to an estimated US$ 13.1 million.
WARDA is relatively stable on pws, where its current budget is notably larger than implied by SSA's poverty-weighted share of rice. Its recent record is promising, and like other crop centres, WARDA will benefit from new science that increases chances of success.
