4.1 Sustainable Improvement of Productivity as a System Priority
4.2 Towards a Revised Conceptual Framework for NRM Research
4.3 Implementing the Proposed Framework
4.4 Terminology
4.5 Future Policy on Programmes at the System Level
4.6 Unfinished Business
In the Panel's view the principles underlying the ecoregional approach, as initially formulated by TAC, are still valid and sustainable improvement of productivity should be reaffirmed as a System priority. Those words 'sustainable improvement of productivity' encapsulate three related objectives (i) better management of natural resources, (ii) safeguarding the sustainability of agriculture, and (iii) linking the twin pillars of the CGIAR - research on NRM and research on productivity - in order to exploit their complementarities. They also recognize that because of continued population and economic growth, agricultural productivity will need to be increased not just sustained.
The TAC documents examined by the Panel do not contain much of the rationale for links between NRM research and productivity research. One reason, significant in 1990, was that a change was being sought in the way commodity and regional Centres operated in order to broaden the objectives of their production research in line with current thinking on sustainability. Also, there is a reference in an unpublished TAC paper to integration of all aspects of sustainability at the national level being the pre-requisite for attaining sustainability. The Panel believes strongly in the importance of the potential complementarity of NRM and productivity research, for instance through changes in production practices to prevent natural resources from being degraded in the first place, and through the conservation and use of biodiversity.
NRM and productivity research have already been linked successfully in the natural-resource Centres, CIAT and more recently in IITA. Effective linkages also exist in some other cases, especially at the applied research level (Section 3.1.1.2). The System is in the process of adopting a logframe approach that explicitly joins production and NRM in its statements of purposes and outputs. In addition. Centre Directors are currently looking at the role of integrated NRM in the CGIAR. These measures should be sufficient to ensure that the "twin pillars" are well linked in future, especially if the System's external review processes regularly monitor the effectiveness of use of the logframe.
Therefore, the Panel's advice in the rest of this Chapter is directed largely to NRM issues. As already stated in Chapter 3, the need identified during the 1980s to strengthen research on NRM and agricultural sustainability, to complement the System's strengths in commodity improvement research, has been only partly met so far. Even those Centres with a traditionally strong commodity approach would benefit from an increased NRM effort based on the principles of the ecoregional approach.
The Panel believes that better management of natural resources - soil, water, forests, aquatic resources, biodiversity - is critical if the CGIAR's objectives of poverty alleviation, food security and environmental conservation are to be achieved. Major food production systems in the developing world face multiple threats from the degradation of the natural-resource base by the continuing expansion of agriculture into marginal lands, the breakdown of traditional management systems due to population growth, and from high levels of intensification that degrade land and water and pollute the environment. Many of these problems affect large areas and transcend political boundaries. Failure to address these pressing NRM issues is undermining the CGIAR's efforts to alleviate poverty and sharply reducing the payoff from the CGIAR's investment in traditional areas of plant and animal improvement. While resources from a variety of research organizations must be mobilized to confront these problems, the Panel believes that NRM research should be a high priority for the System.
Recommendation 4: That the CGIAR reaffirms research on the sustainable improvement of productivity as being a high-priority activity, which should include providing leadership on selected aspects of research on major NRM problems.
The Systemwide ecoregional initiatives were launched largely as an effort to focus CGIAR attention on NRM issues. As noted in previous sections, this research has made important contributions but has failed to fully exploit the power of the new approach. Major Centre activities remain focused on productivity enhancement through commodity research and some Centres are still not structured effectively for integrated NRM research. The Panel believes that a considerable part of the problem is a flawed conceptual framework for organizing and prioritizing the ecoregional approach and lack of clarity in communicating a vision for NRM research to donors, NARS and other major stakeholders. This section provides broad elements of a conceptual framework using revised terminology, which the Panel believes would help guide System support to NRM. It is followed by specific recommendations on implementing the framework.
As stressed a number of times in this report, there is much confusion within the CGIAR and among partners on the definition of NRM research with an ecoregional approach. It is, therefore, imperative that the System provides and communicates a clear strategy for organizing its research on NRM. The Panel proposes a definition that departs from problem identification and which considers the characteristics of the research approach used to solve the problem as well as indicators of its success.
CGIAR research on NRM should be organized around major problems (or opportunities) of NRM that are of both national and international relevance (important across a broad region within a continent and/or across continents). These problems or opportunities may be defined primarily from the perspective of preservation of natural resources, such as saving natural forests, or primarily from the perspective of food security, such as lack of sustainability of current food-production systems. However, most problems will include elements of both perspectives with important inter-relationships (e.g., sustainable agricultural intensification on land other than natural forests to allow these to be preserved).
Prioritization of NRM problems within the CGIAR should follow the general criteria outlined for CGIAR activities: (i) the importance of the problem in terms of food security, poverty alleviation and the environment, (ii) the likelihood, taking into account NARS capacities, that investment in strategic research over the long term will produce solutions to the problem, (iii) the potential to produce international public goods with wide spillovers across national boundaries, and (iv) the potential for applied R&D activities to have tangible impacts in the short to medium term.
To set priorities requires defining boundaries for the identified problems (i.e., the 'problem domain'). For the CGIAR, the major challenge is to map the geographical boundaries of the occurrence and severity of the problem, perhaps including a time dimension as well. Each problem domain may consist of one or more research domains, depending on whether the same research programme is relevant to the whole or part of the problem domain. Characterization of the research domain, in terms of biophysical, socioeconomic, market and political variables, is essential to understand the problem, design and execute the research and extrapolate results valid for similar situations. The Panel recognizes that the research domain may be defined in a number of ways, both bottom up and top down, and include references to the underlying agroecological zones, but the essential point is that the research domain must be problem-driven.
This contrasts with the TAC definition of six major ecoregions based on agroecological and economic criteria, without defining their major NRM problems a priori (TAC/CGIAR 1992). The Panel believes that concentrating on major problems or opportunities provides a better focus for collaborative research and accords more closely with scientific practice. Ecoregional programmes that have been most successful to date (Section 3.1.1.1) are identified with problems which are relatively amenable to geographical mapping.1
1 However, TAC's ecoregions may still have advantages for priority setting. Indeed, they were first delineated during the review of priorities and strategies completed in 1992/93.
While pursuing NRM problems/opportunities is the primary purpose, and the means of achieving that purpose (end) should not be confused with it, the CGIAR should always aspire to best practice. Therefore, the Panel further suggests that the CGIAR's work in NRM combine five characteristics essential to solving the identified problems.
1. The human element in several dimensions (social, economic, political and institutional) together with technical elements are integrated in solving the problem. Solutions may include both technical and policy interventions broadly related to the rural economy (food crops, cash crops, livestock, fish, forests and non-farm economic activities).2. Holistic systems thinking and methods are used to understand and solve the problem.
3. The problem is addressed at multiple scales, from plot to field to watershed to higher levels of aggregation, as needed, to consider both on-farm and off-site impacts.
4. The definition and solution of the problem uses participatory approaches that involve users and other stakeholders (especially NARS) at all stages from problem identification to research evaluation.
5. The research will be formulated, managed and executed by a multidisciplinary team approach, which is often only achievable through a multi-institutional partnership, to ensure that the full range of skills needed to solve complex problems in NRM are mobilized.
Any distinction between the proposed approach and the original intentions of the ecoregional approach is mostly a question of degree. The proposed approach explicitly includes attention to off-site impacts at higher scale levels, takes a long-term perspective, and gives greater weight to the human dimension in both diagnosing and solving problems. It has much in common with the TAC study on Priorities and Strategies for Soil and Water Aspects of Natural Resources Management Research in the CGIAR (TAC/CGIAR 1997a).
The integration and management of the many and diverse disciplines and skills needed to address complex NRM problems at the watershed level and beyond, is a formidable task that requires Centres to seek partnerships. In many cases, a single Centre will have a natural advantage in initiating and promoting NRM on a particular problem that merits CGIAR attention. Other Centres may be natural partners for these efforts, but this should be based on merit rather than obligation. The Panel believes that the greater part of the NRM research in the System can be managed at the Centre level. Only in exceptional circumstances should NRM programmes be featured at the System level (Section 4.5).
The initiation of a major new programme of NRM research requires a convening institution or institutions to take the lead in conceptualising the approach to the problem and in facilitating relevant partnership arrangements. Most of the convening of ecoregional programmes was done by CGIAR Centres, but there is no reason why this should be the case with new programmes in future. Moreover, the majority of the existing programmes have now reached the stage where they no longer need a convenor. In those cases. Centres should continue to support collaboration and to provide needed technical backstopping and scientific advice, but more in partnership than convening mode. Established consortia have their own governance mechanisms (Section 4.3.2). However, the CGIAR still needs to designate its lead Centre to provide leadership within the System. To complete the list of definitions, a host Centre/institution is the one with which the facilitation unit is affiliated.
Within the proposed framework, progress toward solving the problem would be measured by indicators that reflect the technological, institutional, and human and policy dimensions of system sustainability over the medium to long term. Indicators would be problem-specific and would apply to the combined effort of all research partners. The output level of the logframe, which has the four levels of goals, intermediate goals, purposes and outputs (TAC 1998), is particularly relevant. Indicators of outputs would normally include key biological and physical parameters relating to soil and water resources, pest populations and conservation of agrobiodiversity, and indicators of human welfare, such as broad-based increases in household income. Increased agricultural productivity and reduced year-to-year production variability are other examples. By definition, logframe indicators are quantitative and time-related, with the scale specified.
Other output indicators relate to the CGIAR's role in providing knowledge and expertise to enhance the performance of research. Such indicators would reflect the development of tools and methods to extrapolate research results at the international, national and sub-national levels, and of strategic knowledge and understanding of physical, biological and socioeconomic processes in NRM, and of institutional capacity in NARS.
Recommendation 5: That the CGIAR and its Members adopt a revised framework for NRM research comprising three elements: (a) research should be organized around major problems (or opportunities) of sustainable NRM that are of international relevance, (b) it should use holistic systems approaches that combine human and technical elements to address problems on multiple scales, and (c) it should provide for its progress to be measured against specific performance indicators.
Recommendation 6: That the principles underlying the revised framework be applied by all CGIAR Centres involved in NRM research for the sustainable improvement of productivity.
One reason why the standard of monitoring and evaluation of ecoregional programmes has been unsatisfactory is probably because these programmes have been largely excluded from the independent external review processes of the CGIAR. Evaluation of regional NRM research should be given a higher priority in future. For Centres, the external review processes (External Programme and Management Reviews and Centre Commissioned External Reviews) should explicitly focus on how well the revised framework has been mainstreamed into their work. System-level NRM programmes should be subject to external reviews, commissioned by the lead Centre and its partners on a regular basis of every three to four years. In-depth 'sunset' reviews should be scheduled every 10 years to decide whether a programme should be continued or not.
Recommendation 7: The CGIAR's external review processes should explicitly focus in future on how well the revised approach has been mainstreamed into the work of Centres. System-level activities should be subject to special external reviews and in-depth 'sunset' reviews.
4.3.1 Priorities and strategies
4.3.2 Organization and governance
4.3.3 Strengthening strategic research in NRM
4.3.4 Strengthening social science research, especially policy research
4.3.5 Developing and harmonizing methodologies
4.3.6 Exchanges among NRM Programmes
The Panel recognizes that further work is needed to develop the above framework and to provide specific guidelines for its implementation. It recommends that TAC commission a multidisciplinary task force of experts to assist it in this purpose and to identify a priority short list of major NRM research problems and opportunities. Although the strengthening of NRM research was a major part of the ecoregional approach, it appears that the precise problems that were a threat to sustainability were never specified.
|
Summary of Revised Framework for NRM Research in the CGIAR | |
|
Definition: |
Identified by major NRM problem transcending national boundaries |
|
Selection Criteria: |
Importance of problem in terms of CGIAR goals; NARS commitment and participation; production of international public goods. |
|
Elements of the Approach: |
Holistic systems thinking; multiple scales; human element; characterization; participatory approaches. |
|
Intermediate Indicators: |
Increased agricultural production over the long term; changes in quality of resource base; system resilience to external shocks |
|
Multiplier Effects of CGIAR: |
Tools and methods; development of knowledge; institutional capacity. |
|
Evaluation of Impact: |
Poverty alleviated; food security achieved; environment protected |
This is in striking contrast to the situation in crop improvement where the System has always maintained a tight discipline over priorities through mandates.
Once the task force has done its job, TAC should immediately prioritize the existing ecoregional programmes and identify those few that merit continuation at System level. At the same time, TAC should include the definition of researchable NRM problems and opportunities as an integral part of the upcoming priority- and strategy exercise. In making its recommendations for resource allocations for the period 1998-2000, TAC was unable to do more than apply a weighting to protecting the environment at the very broad System level (TAC/CGIAR 1997b).
Recommendation 8: That TAC commission an expert task force to assist it in developing and implementing the revised conceptual framework for NRM research in the CGIAR.
On present indications, the existing ecoregional programmes deal with only two major problems or opportunities of sustainable NRM that are of international significance: rice and wheat sustainability in the high-yielding production systems of Asia (RWC); and the worldwide problem of tropical deforestation (ASB, Humid Forest Consortium of EPHTA, Forest Margins in CIAT's work). However, TAC and the expert task force would need to consider whether there are other factors that need to be taken into account, such as the role that some Programmes may play in developing methods and experiences that could be of wider applicability than in the regions covered by their current activities. AHI, if it can be focused on a major natural-resource problem, may be a case in point because it deals with a great diversity of production systems, many based on commodities not covered by the CGIAR mandate. The experiences and methods developed there may be more applicable in areas with complex production systems than for the relatively simple rice-wheat rotation.
Care should be taken to distinguish between priorities in food security and poverty alleviation on the one hand and those in NRM on the other, as these will not necessarily be identical. The study commissioned by TAC on CGIAR Research Priorities for Marginal Lands (TAC/CGIAR 1996) commented that rural poverty, especially that associated with marginal areas, is a product of many factors, some of which fall outside the scope of research. For instance, marginal areas have typically been neglected by central governments, resulting in limited public investment in education, health and infrastructure. This multifaceted nature of the problem of marginal lands may explain why the DMI has had difficulty in identifying a major NRM theme for its ecoregional programme, despite the human importance of the problems of desert margins.
Collaborative research consortia are the organizational method chosen by most of the existing ecoregional programmes and are judged to be very satisfactory for future use at either Centre or System level. However, if the Panel's recommendation on the revised framework is accepted, consortia will only be set up to address major problems (or opportunities) of sustainable NRM that are of international relevance. Not all research on the sustainable improvement of productivity warrants the setting up of research consortia at either Centre or System level and there is still a place for reductionism in the CGIAR research agenda.
NRM research conducted through partnerships requires a governance structure that reflects the joint nature of the work. No one model can fit all situations but one that has worked well has been the formation of a regional or global policy body composed of major NARS and CGIAR partners, chaired by the NARS. This policy body may be assisted by one or more technical committees in order to formulate and coordinate research plans and monitor results. This structure is already in place to a large extent in some consortia, such as CONDESAN and the Rice-Wheat Steering Committee. In these examples, the effort is led by the NARS while the lead Centre coordinates the CGIAR's input. For some regionally based efforts, the emerging regional research associations should be explored as a mechanism to oversee governance (as in the AHI).
However, as noted elsewhere in this report, there have sometimes been difficulties in the operational and technical management of collaborative research programmes. It is not easy for a body composed entirely of representatives of competing research organizations to resolve amicably sensitive issues in allocating responsibilities, money (especially money), and in due course, credit for achievements. The Panel suggests that partners consider the addition of a few independent members to the technical committees responsible for the management of collaborative research consortia. Those independent members (an independent chair has proved particularly helpful in other places) should be chosen for their skills and experience in technical corporate governance. Eventually, it may be worthwhile for consortia to consider simple contracts to add order and predictability to their relationships. The present 'loose' arrangements do not seem adequate to deal with some of the emerging issues.
In some of the existing ecoregional programmes, very little new strategic research on resource management issues is being conducted beyond the initial characterization of research sites and domains. This criticism is less applicable to the research being conducted outside the ecoregional programmes in the natural-resource Centres, particularly in CIFOR. The Panel strongly advocates raising the standards of strategic research. As the strategic research on NRM being carried out by Centres is constrained by current budget pressures, the Panel suggests that the only feasible way to bring in additional skills in strategic research is through wider partnerships with mature NARS and Advanced Research Organizations. This will require concerted donor support over a period of a decade or longer.
Rigorous priority-setting is advisable, because in some areas that have been intensively studied already, especially in biophysical aspects of NRM, the knowledge base may be adequate for present purposes. In other areas, there are excellent opportunities for the CGIAR to create international public goods through innovative strategic research. Newer research approaches such as integrated catchment management and modelling of multiple-objective decision making have not been taken up to any extent yet. Research paradigms combining human and technical elements of NRM in a holistic systems framework are needed. Another challenging opportunity is that of using advanced technologies to overcome the problem of the location specificity of many NRM phenomena (see Section 4.3.5). There is also a significant general point about strategic research. Unless the CGIAR Centres and their developing country partners have the necessary scientific capacity and credibility, it is difficult for them to draw effectively on the basic knowledge and understanding of NRM that resides in Advanced Research Organizations.
Current initiatives have performed variably in improving the disciplinary balance between social science and technical research. Overall, however, the Panel recommends considerable strengthening of social-science research in order to achieve the balance between the human and technical dimensions originally envisaged by TAC, This is reinforced by the fact that social-science capacity in NRM is one of the weakest disciplines in NARS, especially in government research and extension organizations. Many programmes require additional expertise in economics, sociology and anthropology, especially in relation to strategic research on farmer and community decision making on natural-resource issues. Social science research may also throw new light on the reasons for the apparently large backlog of un- and under-used research results in NRM - a long-standing cause of concern.
All programmes require strong efforts in policy research to analyse the broader questions of macro-economic and sectoral policies as they affect resource-management decisions. Policy research and interaction with policy makers is also needed to enhance resource management through the design of appropriate financial incentives, public investment allocations and targeted developmental programmes. Even in the ecoregional programmes where social-science research seemed to be reasonably strong, policy research was usually weak. The Panel recommends that Centres adjust staff mix, even within existing budgets, to give more balance to social sciences, and that they strengthen capacity in social-science research in NRM, giving special attention to policy research, by forming relevant partnerships.
Recommendation 9: That a special effort is required to strengthen collaboration with strong partners in strategic research on biophysical, social science and policy aspects of NRM. The frequently observed imbalance between biophysical and social-science research must be redressed.
In many Centres, developing sustainable NRM research is at a relatively early stage. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Panel found considerable methodological diversity with respect to work on characterization, research at benchmark sites, and emphasis on tools and methods versus technology. Given the widely varying nature of the problems being addressed, considerable diversity of methods is expected. However, the Panel also feels that there are many opportunities for standardization or convergence of methods. In addition, many areas of methodology remain poorly developed in all programmes. These problems need to be addressed primarily by the programmes and experiences shared (next section).
Nevertheless, the Panel cautions against the danger of methodology becoming too much of an end in itself (and also against too strong a reliance upon any particular school of thought on methodology). There needs to be a balance between defining the problem and working to solve the problem (including monitoring and evaluation); in other words, a balance between characterization, intervention and upscaling activities. It is the Panel's belief that this shift in emphasis is essential if impact opportunities are to be enhanced in the target population and environment. In addition, the design of robust and simple methodologies (the minimum data sets being developed at CIP are one example) should go a long way towards protecting time and resources that could then be invested in the intervention and upscaling parts of the programmes.
The Panel recommends that special attention be given to the inter-related issues of scaling within benchmark sites from field to watershed and beyond, and extrapolation outside the benchmark sites. While the Panel recognizes the complexity of these issues, they must be addressed early in the research process, even prior to selection of the benchmark sites. The Panel believes that although there will be limited opportunities to extrapolate finished technologies and policies, there is considerable scope to extrapolate strategic understanding of the physical, biological and socioeconomic processes in resource management, as well as tools and methods to enhance the efficiency of applied research over wide areas. As a result of recent advances in the enabling technologies, unprecedented opportunities exist to combine the powers of integrated computer-based modelling with those of remote sensing and GIS data-handling methods. In this respect, and given the heavy investment at some sites, the Panel recommends that more attention be given to developing robust methods, such as minimum data sets, that can be applied within the financial and human resource constraints of NARS.
Recommendation 10: That, in relation to methodology, special attention should be given to harmonizing the inter-related issues of scaling within benchmark sites and of extrapolation from them. Robust techniques are needed that can be applied within the financial and human resource constraints of national systems, using minimum data sets.
At this stage of developing NRM within the new framework, there are a multitude of methodological and other issues, many of which are common to most programmes. A specific example is the need to develop financial benchmarks for the efficient operation of the facilitation units of research consortia. Therefore, the Panel strongly recommends regular focused workshops to exchange information on selected topics related to methods, organization and management of NRM research. They should also foster communication on innovative approaches and emerging lessons. National partners and specialist institutes such as IBSRAM should be fully involved.
Recommendation 11: That regular workshops should be arranged under the aegis of the Centre Directors' Committee for the exchange of information, experiences and lessons learned in NRM research, especially that conducted within collaborative research consortia. In addition, attention should be given to filling gaps amongst NARS partners in the special skills needed for conducting research on NRM.
In the interests of clarity, the Panel strongly advises that the words ecoregional approach be dropped from common usage in the CGIAR. This term, as used in many fora, has been asked to carry far too heavy a burden of diverse messages. The original broad reasons for adopting the ecoregional approach should be reaffirmed (Recommendation 4) but the objectives should be defined much more precisely and in plain words (Recommendation 8). The term ecoregional should be reserved in future for its original use, namely in connection with the regional definition of agroecological zones. The word 'regional' would suffice to describe the research/problem domains adopted in most of the existing ecoregional programmes.
The CGIAR should support a combined System effort in the few exceptional cases where: the natural-resource problem is of major importance on a global or regional scale; no single Centre has the natural advantage in taking the leadership role; and there is considerable potential to capture synergies and gain in efficiency by coordinating the efforts of two or more Centres. Such combined System initiatives should be carefully prioritized and given System status as part of a coordinated approach to donors. Adequate, secure funding is needed to provide an incentive for collaboration. A pragmatic approach should be employed in selecting partners, recognizing that there is a range of partners, apart from other CGIAR Centres, who might provide the needed skills. However, the lead Centre should have a strong stake in the Systemwide effort.
The application of these criteria depends very strongly on progress in developing the guidelines mentioned in Section 4.3.1. Even if those guidelines are not fully developed in time, the Panel recommends that a preliminary selection of Programmes that merit continuation at the System level should be made by TAC in March 2000 when it reviews the research agenda for 2001.
Recommendation 12: That three criteria be adopted for the selection of programmes to be supported at the System level: (a) the problem (or opportunity) is of major importance in relation to CGIAR goals, (b) no single Centre has a natural advantage in terms of its mandate, and (c) there is a high potential for efficiency gains from the combined efforts of two or more Centres.
Recommendation 13: If guidelines have not been fully developed in time, a preliminary selection of Programmes that merit continuation at the System level should be made by TAC in March 2000, when it reviews the Research Agenda for 2001.
These recommendations should not be construed as a diminution of the importance of the NRM problems that should, in future, be supported at the level of Centres. Nor do they imply that Centre-level programmes have little chance of future growth or success. The traditional strengths of the CGIAR lie in leadership and management at the Centre level (including the arrangement of a good deal of inter-Centre cooperation), and the Panel is doing no more than recognizing that reality. In fact, the designation of Systemwide Programmes has generally not proved popular with donors, as evidenced by their funding decisions since 1994, and a special effort will be needed to provide adequate CGIAR support for those major programmes selected for continuation at the System level. In addition, the Panel believes that there are still untapped sources of funding that could support these efforts. These include the philanthropic area, the private sector, international environmental funds and bilateral technical assistance.
Even if the above recommendations are accepted, and a similar process is adopted for deciding the future of the other Systemwide Programmes, further action will still be required on behalf of the few remaining System-level Programmes in order to overcome the identity and funding problems identified in Chapter 3. Visibility is essential in today's process of competitive bidding for CGIAR funds. It seems curious that many non-CGIAR organizations use the Mid-Term Meetings and International Centres' Weeks to canvass for support, whereas the System's own programmes have largely been overlooked. That situation was remedied for the ASB, but so far as the Panel is aware, other ecoregional programmes have not enjoyed similar exposure (at least in plenary sessions).
While this issue falls outside the Terms of Reference of the present Review, the Panel offers the suggestion that action is needed at two levels. First, a way has to be found for System-level Programmes to be given appropriate opportunities to present their case to the Group in the future. Obviously, the Panel thinks that this privilege should be accorded only to those very high-priority Programmes which address major problems (or opportunities) that are of international relevance. Secondly, the funding of such System-level Programmes needs to be considered formally by TAC during its annual review of Centres' medium-term and financing plans. Estimates of required funding should be included in the CGIAR financial matrices (Recommendation 3). TAC should highlight the programmatic implications for CGIAR priorities and strategies to the Finance Committee and the Group, especially to the co-sponsors in their role as donors.
