172. The Chair invited Dr. Gordon MacNeil of the CGIAR Secretariat to present to TAC Members a proposed plan developed by the Secretariat to shift the resource allocation process of the CGIAR to a three-year funding cycle starting 1998.
173. Dr. MacNeil based his presentation on a paper on this subject, dated June 1995 which had been provided to TAC Members. He reviewed the CGIAR resource allocation experience over the last two medium-term plan periods, commented on the desirable characteristics of a resource allocation process for the future in the light of reforms now underway in the CGIAR, outlined a set of options for shifting to a new budgetary cycle, and then provided a detailed proposal for a three-year budget and resource allocation timeframe.
174. The specific proposal was that the CGIAR moved to a three-year cycle using a staggered system in which one-third of the Centres would present three-year plans in any given year. The multi-year aspect would preserve the advantage implicit in a longer timeframe for resource planning, while also adjusting for and taking advantage of actual resource availability. The annual workload for Centres would be significantly decreased and the depth and thoroughness of programme analysis by TAC and the Group per proposal would be greatly expanded. Finally, for programme financing, the three-year period might coincide well with a fundraising cycle and project development horizon. While donor approval of multi-year financing would enhance the certainty of annual resource flows, the Centres would still base their operations on a 12-month period, with the usual reporting and internal procedures as at present. Formal programme approvals would be less frequent; changes in Centres' CGIAR resources would be considered by TAC and the Group on an ad hoc basis. However, annual submissions would not be required or expected, except as circumstances clearly dictate.
175. The reactions of TAC Members to the proposal varied somewhat. While it was seen as desirable to reduce the gap between programme planning and fundraising, concern was expressed that reducing the planning period from five to three years and the staggered nature of the approval process would reduce the programmatic consolidation of the System as a whole. While it was acknowledged that the proposal responded to donor needs for predictability and transparency, TAC Members saw no scientific rationale for changing from the current five-year cycle. Concern was also expressed over the probable increase in TAC's workload resulting from the proposed change.
176. Comments from other participants touched upon the need to ensure that the proposed plan was reviewed by the Centre Directors and Board Chairs before a decision was taken by the Group. There was also discussion of the place of complementary funding and the balancing mechanism in the context of the proposed new cycle.
177. The Chair indicated that TAC would consider this matter further in closed session. Before closing discussion of this item, he recognized Dr. Gryseels who reported that the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats had agreed to prepare a joint paper to Centre Directors on the proposed new medium-term cycle which would take into account TAC's comments on the earlier draft.
178. TAC would review and comment on this paper and a second draft would be prepared for discussion at TAC 68 and at MTM'96. TAC also agreed that a revised paper would be circulated to the Group only after Centre Directors and Board Chairs had had an opportunity to review it.
