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.
1 TAC/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.
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$ 270 m. |
At US$ 280 m. |
|
|
A. Centres |
|||
|
|
Recommended Centres' Core Funding |
257.8 |
262.1 |
|
Provision for External Reviews |
1.2 |
1.2 |
|
|
Reserve fur Fisheries |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
|
Sub-total Centres |
260.0 |
264.3 |
|
|
B. CGIAR Systemwide Initiatives |
|||
|
|
Ecoregional Programmes |
4.0 |
6.0 |
|
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 |
70.0 |
15.71 |
|
|
Total Recommended Core Funding |
US$ 270.0 |
US$ 280.0 |
|
1 Totals 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.
