Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Fifth Meeting of the Executive Council September 19, 2003 Washington, D.C.

Summary Record of Proceedings

CGIAR Secretariat (A CGIAR System Office Unit) The World Bank Washington, DC October 10, 2003

Acronyms Used
AGM CBC CCER CDC CGIAR CP CWANA DG EMR EPMR EPR ExCo FAO FC GFAR GRPC HQ ICRISAT IFAD IFPRI IITA INIBAP INRM IPGRI iSC IRT ISNAR NARS NRM OECD/DAC PC PGR PSC SC SNC SPIA SSA Annual General Meeting Committee of Board Chairs Center Commissioned External Review Center Directors Committee Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Challenge Program(s) Central and West Asia and North Africa Director General External Management Review External Program and Management Review External Program Review Executive Council Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ExCo Finance Committee Global Forum for Agricultural Research Genetic Resources Policy Committee Headquarters International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics International Fund for Agricultural Development International Food Policy Research Institute International Institute of Tropical Agriculture International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain Integrated Natural Resource Management International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Interim Science Council ISNAR Restructuring Team International Service for National Agricultural Research National Agricultural Research System Natural Resources Management Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Assistance Committee ExCo Program Committee Plant Genetic Resources Private Sector Committee Science Council Search and Nominatio n Committee Standing Panel on Impact Assessment Sub-Saharan Africa

i

Contents
Agenda Item 1. Opening Session....................................................................................... 1 Agenda Item 2. Governance Matters ................................................................................. 1 2.a. Establishing Science Council ................................................................................... 1 2.b. Process for Transition from iSC to SC .................................................................... 2 2.c. Restructuring ISNAR ............................................................................................... 3 2.d. CGIAR Governance ................................................................................................. 5 Agenda Item 3. Evaluation................................................................................................. 8 3.a. IPGRI EPMR ........................................................................................................... 8 3.b. ICRISAT External Reviews..................................................................................... 9 Comment on the ICRISAT Review Process ................................................................. 12 Agenda Item 4. Program Matters ..................................................................................... 13 4.a. Challenge Programs ............................................................................................... 13 Agenda Item 5. ExCo Business—Brief Updates from Previous ExCo Meetings ........... 14 Agenda Item 6. Other Business ....................................................................................... 14 6.a. Amendment to ExCo Rules of Procedure .............................................................. 14 6.b. Future ExCo Meetings ........................................................................................... 15 Agenda Item 7. Closing Session...................................................................................... 15 Attachments List of Participants ........................................................................................................ 16 Revised Agenda ............................................................................................................ 18 ExCo Member Feedback on the handling of Agenda Items at ExCo 5 ........................ 20

All documents for ExCo5, including ExCo/FC and PC meeting minutes are available at http://www.cgiar.org/who/wwa_excodocs.html

ii

Agenda Item 1. Opening Session
Welcome CGIAR Chair Ian Johnson’s arrival to the meeting venue was delayed because of hazardous weather caused by Hurricane Isabel. Francisco Reifschneider, CGIAR Director and ExCo Executive Secretary, formally opened the meeting and thanked all the members who attended the meeting, and those who attempted to attend but were not able to because of inclement weather. (Meeting participants are listed in Attachment 1) Election of Meeting Co-chair Marina Puccioni (Italy) was elected as meeting co-chair. Adoption of Agenda In light of the delayed start of the meeting, Francisco Reifschneider noted that available time would not allow ExCo to cover all the items in the draft agenda. It was agreed that priority should be given to agenda items 2.a. Establishing Science Council and 2.c. Restructuring ISNAR, and the external reviews of IPGRI and ICRISAT, which had been discussed a day earlier by ExCo/FC and PC. In fact, the only items that were on the draft agenda but were not covered included two information items: 4.a. Challenge Programs and 5. ExCo Business—Brief Updates from Previous ExCo Meetings. (Revised Agenda is in Attachment 2)

Agenda Item 2. Governance Matters
2.a. Establishing Science Council The report of the Search and Nomination Committee (SNC) for the Science Council (SC) was presented by SNC Chair Mohamed Hassan (via audio conference) and SNC member Steve Slack. It was discussed by the ExCo in a closed session. Discussion: • Members agreed that the newly appointed SC Chair could devote some 60 percent of his time to the SC so long as all the tasks and assignments spelled out in SC Chair’s terms of reference are duly fulfilled. • ExCo agreed that the SC Chair should have a major say in the selection of the Executive Secretary of the SC. ExCo recognized that the appointment process had to satisfy any legal obligations of FAO as host organization. • If World Bank procedures present constraints in the appointment of the SC Chair, the possibility of using other mechanisms should be explored.

1

Conclusions and recommendations to the CGIAR: • ExCo thanked M. Hassan and the members of the SNC for their work. • ExCo endorsed SNC’s top-recommended slate for the Science Council (Option 1 of the SNC report) and agreed, by consensus, to recommend its approval by the CGIAR on a no-objection basis. The recommended composition is as follows: Chair: Per Pinstrup-Andersen (Denmark) Members: Virender Chopra (India) Michael Gale (UK) Keiji Kainuma (Japan) Onesmo ole-MoiYoi (Kenya) Terezinha Padilha (Brazil) Lisa Sennerby-Forsse (Sweden) Members continuing from iSC: Alain de Janvry (France) Richard Harwood (USA) Hans Gregersen (USA)--SPIA Chair • ExCo recommended the creation of a Vice-Chair position within the SC, with the incumbent providing complementarity in gender, South-North balance, and disciplinary expertise. • ExCo observed that, upon completion of the terms of the members continuing from iSC, the SC’s expertise in the area of INRM, would be weakened. In view of this, ExCo recommends that, in appointing members to its standing panels, the SC should aim to improve its overall expertise in INRM (including fisheries and agroecology), and, as a general norm, its gender, South-North, and age balance. 2.b. Process for Transition from iSC to SC Francisco Reifschneider provided an overview of the transitional arrangements that have been made to ensure the continuity of the Science Council’s operations from September 15, 2003 (when iSC’s term expired) until the approval of the new SC by the CGIAR (expected to be prior to AGM03). He noted that these arrangements were made in view of the SNC’s recommendations for smooth transition and after consultation with several iSC and ExCo members and include the appointment of interim Science Council (iSC) members Richard Harwood, Alain de Janvry, and Hans Gregersen as a transition team, under the coordination of Harwood. They would ensure that the ongoing work of the Science Council continues uninterrupted during the interim period. Discussion • ExCo supported the proposed arrangements in general. Adel El-Beltagy expressed concern that the outgoing iSC had not reviewed the MTPs prepared by the Centers and hoped that the transition team would fill this void. Francisco Reifschneider replied that this was indeed one of the tasks the trans ition team had agreed to complete. • One member stated that the CGIAR needs a strong, independent SC that provides strategic guidance to the System on Center programs and on allocation of resources.

2

Conclusion: • ExCo expressed its satisfaction with the transition arrangements. 2.c. Restructuring ISNAR Grant Scobie, Chair ISNAR Restructuring Team (IRT), was not able to attend the ExCo meeting because of the inclement weather conditions in Washington, D.C. Francisco Reifschneider gave a brief overview of the IRT’s activities and ExCo members were shown G. Scobie’s slide presentation summarizing the points in the IRT Report. Moïse Mensah, ISNAR Board Chair and IRT member, was invited to comment. He stated that ISNAR is in agreement with the IRT recommendations and eager to complete the transition as soon as possible. ISNAR’s main concern is having a governance arrangement that preserves the programmatic identity of ISNAR. The Board accepts the recommended alliance with IFPRI. In addition to generating programmatic synergies, this alliance could lead to significant potential savings (to the tune of US$2.0 m per year). Mensah noted that ISNAR has discussed headquarters (HQ) issues with relevant authorities in Africa. ISNAR believes a HQ in South Africa (Pretoria) is the best option, but remains receptive to other locations, e.g., Addis Ababa. He stressed the importance of IRT’s Recommendation 5 (urging Members to provide continued support to the ISNAR program). He concluded his remarks by the thanking the IRT Chair G. Scobie on behalf of the ISNAR Board. The Director General (DG) of IFPRI, Joachim von Braun, was invited to comment on the IRT report and IFPRI’s reactions to it. Von Braun noted that IFPRI is in favor of the proposed alliance and is prepared to nurture such an alliance. He stressed, however, given different interpretations of the term “alliance,” this alliance should be seen as forming a bond between two parties that are members of the same “fa mily,” rather than an association being formed among two sovereign entities. Under the proposed alliance, ISNAR would cease to exist as a sovereign entity. All responsibilities of a new ISNAR program under IFPRI governance would fall under IFPRI board and management. He also stressed the need for all legal matters to be thoroughly examined. IFPRI can initiate informal discussions with ISNAR immediately, but would not take formal steps until the CGIAR acts on the IRT’s proposals. Discussion: • Members expressed agreement with the IRT recommendations and stressed the importance of a successful transition as many inside and outside the System would be watching the restructuring with interest. • John Vercoe stated that the issue of why support for ISNAR dwindled to the point where the current situation arose should be explored to avoid a repeat in other Centers. He also stressed the importance of real and effective decentralization of the Center and the need for significant activities to take place in the field, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

3

• •

•

• • •

•

•

•

Adel El-Beltagy noted that the services performed by ISNAR are very important not only for SSA, but also for CWANA and Asia, and it is very important that these functions continue. Hayato Nakajima highlighted the fact that several CGIAR offices are already located in SSA countries. Therefore, it is important that ISNAR’s activities are truly streamlined. He did not see the value of a separate HQ for ISNAR, but rather a branch office of IFPRI or better to share an existing branch office in SSA. Kevin Cleaver expressed concern about the closing costs of ISNAR (estimated at US$4 million), and moving the HQ to Addis Ababa or Pretoria, which would increase the cost. In light of the shortage of unrestricted funds in the System, the FC discussed what funding source could be used to finance the move. It would be prudent to look more closely at these issues and the reality of the costs involved, by considering options such as not having a HQ, but utilizing an existing branch office, or an absorption of ISNAR into IFPRI. Njabulo Nduli noted that, in view of the proposed structural changes and the new ISNAR mandate which has changed significantly from the original, South Africa is withdrawing the offer to host the institution. Several members supported the points made by earlier speakers on the nature of the alliance to be formed, the costs associated with the transition, and the need for a separate HQ in SSA. Franklin Moore asked for clarification of the next steps in the process. Francisco Reifschneider responded that the IRT report would be transmitted to the CGIAR, with ExCo’s recommendations, for discussion at AGM03. ISNAR and IFPRI would be asked to address the issues raised at ExCo5 (i.e., financial issues, including the advantages and disadvantages of a HQ in Pretoria or Addis Ababa, etc.) at the AGM. Peter Matlon stated that the foundations welcome strongly the recommendations of the IRT. It underlines a rare case where the System has made a difficult choice but represents a model of change and has broader implications in terms of whether similar approaches could be applied elsewhere in the System. He identified with Japan’s comments that the number of CGIAR Center offices in SSA does not portray efficiency, when viewed from a System perspective. Matlon supported the notion of alliance as within a “family” and noted that having a separate HQ for the ISNAR program does not fit well with that notion. He reiterated the need for clarity on fiscal governance issues and suggested that ExCo should clearly state, with a single voice, what type of alliance is being recommended. Franklin Moore noted that the restructuring of ISNAR is part of a much larger issue in terms of how CGIAR activities are structured in SSA. It also ties with the recommended move of ICRISAT’s HQ to SSA. These should not be looked at in isolation. Both should be addressed with a Systemwide perspective. Other members expressed support for his comments, which complemented earlier comments from Japan. Klaus Winkel echoed that ISNAR and ICRISAT restructuring issues should not be looked at in isolation. There is need for a strategic framework and master plan within which these issues can be considered.

4

•

•

Other members expressed agreement with the need to look at the broader Systemwide strategic issues, but stated that the urgency of the ISNAR situation demands action now—one that should not wait for the completion of a lengthy strategic study. Several members saw a need for a task force to examine the broader System structure issues, in addition to the transition team for ISNAR. Joachim von Braun stressed that the recommended restructuring is, fundamentally, about trusting the two Boards. The transition is not easy, because two different organizational cultures would need to be brought together. There are advantages to locally concentrating the new ISNAR program in a team, and to review experiences and progress after some period (e.g., in three years). IFPRI has no hidden decisions on location. This is a business decision and should be handled in a business- like manner. Moise Mensah echoed von Braun’s points, particularly about the need to trust the two boards.

Conclusions and recommendations to the CGIAR: • ExCo endorsed the recommendations in the final report of the IRT (dated September 5, 2003). • The recommended alliance is important as it can serve as a model for the System going forward. • The recommended transition should proceed as quickly as possible. IFPRI and ISNAR should report to the CGIAR at AGM03 about progress, taking into consideration ExCo’s concerns on finance, governance, and the HQ of the program. • ISNAR should report to the CGIAR at AGM03 specifically on financial implications of the restructuring and on location. • As it applies to the ISNAR-IFPRI case, the term “alliance” refers to forming a bond between two parties that are members of the same “family,” with the result that one of the parties would cease to remain as a sovereign entity. • On an issue triggered by the ISNAR case, ExCo recommends to the CGIAR the creation of a task force to conduct a broader study on rationalization of CGIAR operations across the System (starting with Africa). 2.d. CGIAR Governance 2.d.1. Process for rotation of ExCo members The item was introduced by Selçuk Özgediz. To ensure a balanced rotation of ExCo at AGM03, it is suggested that three of nine ExCo members scheduled for rotation be postponed until AGM04. This would ensure continuity in the membership of ExCo and, starting next year, one- half of the 12 seats would rotate each year. The Cosponsors would hold a random drawing prior to AGM03 to determine which three of the nine seats would have their terms extended to a third year to achieve a balanced rotation thereafter. Following its discussion at ExCo5, the proposal would be sent to CGIAR, with ExCo’s modifications, for approval on a no-objection basis prior to AGM03.

5

Discussion: • Abel Fardous questioned the grouping of Israel with the CWANA constituency since Israel considers itself a developed country and part of Europe and since other classifications (such as FAO’s) place it under “Europe.” The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat should research this issue and provide a clarification. • The issue of minimum financial contributions also needs to be explored. Specifically, counting in-kind contributions toward the minimum funding that determines eligibility to serve on ExCo needs to be further discussed. Selçuk Özgediz commented that this issue is being addressed in a separate paper on CGIAR membership, which is being discussed by ExCo. • Members said the note should make clear that the random drawing is only for this year and only for the purpose of determining which constituency will/will not rotate. How rotation is done is entirely up to the members of the constituency. The proposal is to ensure continuity and an orderly transition. Conclusion: • The Secretariat should research and clarify the grouping of countries into constituencies and adjust the draft taking into account ExCo members’ comments. The revised draft should be sent to the CGIAR for approval on a noobjection basis. 2.d.2. GRPC Membership Manuel Lantin introduced the item and explained the process by which the proposed slate of names was chosen. He noted that the availability of the recommended candidates had not been confirmed and that the proposal includes a list of alternates in the event a recommended candidate is not able to serve on the GRPC. He pointed out that the proposed chair candidate, Calestous Juma, may face difficulty in accepting the position because of the constraints imposed by his home institution’s policies on outside activities. The term of office for all members is 3 years. Discussion: • It should be made clear that appointees are not serving on the GRPC to represent their organizations, but rather a perspective, e.g., private sector appointee is expected to provide a private sector perspective, and not serve on the committee representing the views of his/her company. • Members suggested that conflicts of interest (real or perceived) should be avoided at all cost in making the appointments to the committee. Conclusion and recommendation to the CGIAR: • ExCo endorsed the proposed composition of GRPC and the alternates suggested. The slate of names should be sent to the CGIAR for approval on a no-objection basis after the nominees are contacted to ascertain their availability.

6

2.d.3. Financing Options for the Science Council This was a follow- up item from ExCo4 and was introduced by John Monyo and Kevin Cleaver. FAO had prepared a paper on the financing options, in consultation with the Cosponsors. K. Cleaver noted that the item was discussed in the ExCo/FC meeting and had been discussed previously in a virtual mode among the Cosponsors. The ExCo/FC suggested the following: • The Committee appreciated FAO’s submission regarding science council costs and potential financing options. The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the Science Council, and expresses the view that its financing should be seen in the context of all CGIAR System central overhead costs (which also include the System Office). • The Committee endorses the “hybrid option” presented by FAO in which the FAO continues to provide a direct in-kind and financial contribution, and a fund is opened into which all Members of CGIAR are asked to contribute to overhead including for the maintenance of the Science Council. • The World Bank has agreed that in a transition period (as yet of indeterminate time), it will supplement the contribution of the FAO to ensure that the Science Council is financed, until the new system for financing is in place. The Committee recommends to FAO and the Science Council that in the transition period the SC maintain the current expenditure rate of $2.2 million per annum, rather than the $3.4 million proposed. Once the new financing mechanism is in place, and more CGIAR Members are contributing to the operation, total costs can be reviewed. • During the transition period, the CGIAR Secretariat would consult with CGIAR Members on a longer-term financing modality for the SC, and their possible contributions to it. • Options to explore should inc lude an “assessment” (or tax) scheme which would levy an overhead charge on all restricted funding. • IFAD has informally expressed some interest in housing or sharing the costs of the Standing Committee on Impact Assessment (SPIA), and this arrangement could be used as a “pilot” by restricted donors on how to contribute to the System’s central costs. J. Monyo pointed out that the ExCo/FC recommendation is a variant of Option 4 in the paper. He also pointed out that the future role of Cosponsors is not covered in this paper as the paper deals only with the financing of the Science Council. Discussion: • Klaus Winkel supports the ExCo/FC proposal. He suggested that it could even be made a condition of me mbership, including the proviso that a “tax” of 3 percent on all contributions be levied for overhead financing. • Peter Matlon was concerned that if there were a tax, this would be a tax on the Centers because the donors would not increase their contributions.

7

• •

•

•

•

Adel El-Beltagy suggested that distinction should be made between donors who contribute mostly to core funding and those that give restricted funds. A higher tax would be appropriate for the latter and very low one for the former. General support was voiced for a tax on restricted funds in order to give donors an incentive to move away from the trend to provide restricted funding, but Klaus Winkel noted that if the tax is limited only to restricted funding it would have to be 6 percent. Franklin Moore noted that the study needs to be very specific in terms of percentages of the tax, whether it also includes a tax to the Centers, and if restricted and unrestricted funds are included. A system that involves the minimum amount of distortion of funding should be the goal. The Chairman observed that the level of funding for the SC shown in the paper ($3.4 m) is higher than the current level of $2.2 m. Kevin Cleaver noted that the current level should be maintained, with the objective of keeping overheads down. The Chairman stated that the World Bank should be taken up on its offer to cover the costs in the interim in order to maintain full funding. The Secretariat then should work with the Cosponsors and a number of donors on the various modalities, e.g., a tax or other options/formulas or to go back to the Cosponsors for shared funding. However, he noted that the burden shouldn’t be borne by a single or limited number of donors.

Conclusion: • ExCo took note of the World Bank offer to maintain funding for SC and its secretariat during a transition period by supplementing the contribution of the FAO until a new system for financing is in place. • The Secretariat, in consultation with a number of donors, should develop modalities for future financing of the SC (e.g., tax or other burden sharing formulas) with the objective of making burden sharing as equitable as possible. • The Secretariat should report back to ExCo on modalities, after consulting with the Cosponsors.

Agenda Item 3. Evaluation
3.a. IPGRI EPMR Marina Puccioni and Kevin Cleaver reported the conclusions ExCo/FC and PC had reached on the IPGRI EPMR, respectively: ExCo/PC: • PC endorsed the review recommendations, noting that the iSC concurred with them and that the Center’s responses were all positive. • The following recommendations and related issues were emphasized by some members of the Committee: o not to spread activities and resources too thinly; 8

• •

o IPGRI’s role as a “purveyor of information/knowledge on PGR” rather than as an “honest” broker; o possibility for extending the Center’s mission to genetic resources other than plant (iSC did not endorse this suggestion); and o need for discussion between FAO and IPGRI on the management of germplasm collected with IPGRI’s support. PC strongly supported the recommendation to move towards full integration of INIBAP into IPGRI, safeguarding the banana research identity (logo) as suggested by iSC. PC noted iSC’s observation that IPGRI’S CCERs provided excellent inputs into the EPMR process and commended the Center for organizing them. It recommends that CCERs be designed and organized in a way consistent with the requirements of the EPMRs.

ExCo/FC: The Committee commended the leadership of IPGRI for the positive report. However, it believes that: • Overall, the report is favorable but not sufficiently hard hitting. • The Committee is concerned about the report’s finding that IPGRI’s pursuit of restricted funding has caused it to divert its programs from its core mission. It is happy to see that IPGRI agrees that there is a problem, and intends to monitor IPGRI’s implementation of its response. Discussion: • Emil Javier noted that IPGRI plays an important facilitating role in furthering research on higher value crops such as banana, cacao and coconut, through networks. ExCo Conclusions on the IPGRI EPMR and recommendations to the CGIAR: • ExCo recommends that the CGIAR endorse the recommendations of the IPGRI External Review. 3.b. ICRISAT External Reviews Marina Puccioni and Kevin Cleaver reported the conclusions reached by ExCo/PC and FC, respectively: ExCo/PC: • PC endorsed the review (EPR and EMR) recommendations, concurring with the iSC. It was pleased to note that ICRISAT accepted all the recommendations and has committed to implement them. • On the recommendation to move the Center’s headquarters to Sub-Saharan Africa, the Committee agreed to ICRISAT’s plan to create a task force that would carry out an in-depth study of the programmatic issues, costs, host country agreements, and donor support for various scenarios of the move.

9

•

• •

PC endorsed a suggestion to establish a CGIAR Task Force to consider CGIAR’s overall agenda in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Task Force should consider opportunities for synergies and rationalization in the work of CGIAR Centers and other actors, in the region. An earlier initiative exploring programmatic integration in sub-regions should be revisited. A review of the current “crop mandate model” was suggested. The PC stressed that, although the genebank will remain in India, the responsibility for it, as an international public good, will remain with the CGIAR. The PC agreed with ICRISAT on the importance for the Center to not lose stakeholders in India and continue its activities, especially in other Asian countries.

ExCo/FC: • The Committee is very pleased with the content of the EMR and EPR, particularly the detailed and frank analysis of the issues, and the resulting sharp reports. The total cost was apparently not greater than that of an average EPMR. We do not know whether this demonstrates the superiority of having two exercises, and recognize that there is a challenge of coordinating the two. • The Committee was pleased to see a great deal of agreement by ICRISAT management with recommendations provided in the reports. • The Committee commends the quality of science at ICRISAT as affirmed by the report. • The Committee is concerned by the EMR report’s finding that there are a disproportionate number of host country nationals on the Board and among the senior staff of the Center. Decisions and programs will inevitably be skewed to the host country in this situation. The Committee supports the report’s recommendation that ICRISAT management explore with the host country government a reduction in the number of Board seats, and make greater effort to introduce geographic diversity among its staff. • There is broad agreement within the Committee with the EPR’s main recommendation to transfer the Center’s headquarters and all its programs, except for the strategic plant genetic resources enhancement program, to Africa. The agreement ranged however from strong to acceptable with some caveats. The caveats included: -- the need to take into account broader organizational concerns of the CGIAR (appropriate location of all research, not just ICRISAT research), -- assessment of demand for an additional CGIAR Center in Africa (there is some indication that many African clients of agricultural research want more research but not necessarily more Centers; consolidation might be needed), -- the difficult financing of relocation costs especially in light of declining unrestricted support, -- assessment of potential efficiency gains versus costs, and -- political constraints. • It is not clear where a new HQ would be located. Given the financial limitations on the CGIAR, any move that greatly increased total ICRISAT costs would be unrealistic. Incremental programs in Africa are likely to have to be financed in

10

part by reduced programs in India. We do note that ICRISAT has begun to move programs to Africa and that the percentage of its budget spent in Africa is increasing. We commend this rapid response by ICRISAT. It is conceivable that for some period of time, merely shifting programs and resources to Africa while maintaining the HQ in India, though second best, is most realistic. Broader discussion of this issue is needed. Discussion: • The Chairman started the discussion by highlighting the fact that the biggest challenge the CGIAR will face over the next 30 years will be in Africa and suggested that the discussion on the future of ICRISAT should be conducted with this in mind. • Several members expressed broad support for the reviews. However, the Chairman noted that although the issue of too many host country representatives serving on the board is a problem, the difficulty of moving the HQ to SSA should not be underestimated. There is a tremendous amount of national pride in hosting an international Center, and this will be very important when discussing the future of ICRISAT. • Other members noted that the move of ICRISAT HQ will not only affect ICRISAT and CGIAR activities in India and Africa, but the whole System. • Klaus Winkel stated that the move of ICRISAT may be seen as a sign of things to come as the number of Centers is likely to be reduced in the future and the System operates more on a program basis. In this regard, it might be easier for a host government to agree with a headquarters move if its seen in a broader context of strategic reform and change. • Luis Arango noted that the institution can be maintained in India, but that resources could be moved to Africa in order to achieve what needs to be achieved in Africa. Otherwise, moving the Center’s headquarters may send the wrong message to stakeholders. • ICRISAT DG Willie Dar was invited to give his views in response to the reviews. He commended the Chairman for his recognition of national pride in developing countries of hosting an international Center. He also concurred with the notion of maintaining the institution in India, while undertaking significant activities in Africa. He pointed out the percentage of ICRISAT resources that are currently invested in SSA activities has increased to 43 percent. He also stated that any discussion of moving the HQ should be conveyed to the GOI by CGIAR leadership, and explained in the context of the changing global environment, i.e., by painting the larger picture. • Ian Johnson cautioned that one should not come to the conclusion that ICRISAT and other Centers should move to Africa in order to provide greater focus on Africa. Resource and knowledge flows can still be directed toward Africa with Centers located elsewhere, while at the same time maintaining the international character of the CGIAR without becoming a regional system. • Emil Javier cautioned that the GOI shouldn’t be presented with a fait accompli about a decision to move ICRISAT to SSA. Many things would need to be sorted out before such a move can take place.

11

•

•

•

•

The discussion prompted many members to reiterate the need to look at the larger picture of the overall organizational structure of the CGIAR. This should be done in a strategic context, with clarity on the strategic directions of the System. It is timely for the CGIAR to look at rationalization of the broader System and examine specifically how ICRISAT could operate ten years from now, either as part of a mega-center or perhaps in alliance with IITA. If a broader view is not taken now, the System will not be able to reform the way it should. Kevin Cleaver noted that a distinction should be made between the recommendation to move the HQ and examination of the longer-term of priorities. The question of moving ICRISAT HQ could be delayed until it is more fully examined. However, it should not delay the desire to move programs to Africa. Issues are becoming more relevant for Africa and not as much so for India because India has a strong NARS and is more able to tackle issues on its own. Franklin Moore said that a three-pronged approach may be necessary. There are some matters that are ISNAR-specific and others ICRISAT-specific. These should be taken care of separately, through task forces or other mechanisms. And then, there is the broader, global structural issue, for which Africa could be the first point of entry. He suggested preparation of a short (one-page) concept note that could help guide discussions on this topic at the AGM. The idea of creating space in the AGM business meeting agenda to discuss larger strategic issues and further structural reform in the CGIAR was broadly supported. Support was also voiced to creating a task force to study broader strategic issues, also discussed under Agenda Item. 2.c—Restructuring ISNAR.

ExCo Conclusions on the ICRISAT External Reviews and recommendations to the CGIAR: • ExCo supports and endorses the recommendations of the two reviews (8 of the 9 EPR recommendations) and the recommendations of ExCo/FC and PC on these reviews, including the establishment of a task force to study the restructuring of ICRISAT. ICRISAT should suggest ideas at AGM03 on the composition of such a task force. • The ICRISAT reviews provide an opportunity to launch a discussion at AGM03 on a push for a renewed focus on SSA and the larger strategic and structural issues. The business meeting of AGM03 should be adjusted to create space for this discussion. At AGM03 the CGIAR should consider creating a mechanism (such as a task force) to assist the CGIAR address the issues that will emerge from the discussion. • The CGIAR leadership should initiate dialogue with GOI prior to AGM03 on the recommended restructuring of ICRISAT. Comment on the ICRISAT Review Process Emil Javier, iSC Cha ir, noted that the separate but linked reviews was an experiment. In planning the EPR separately, the iSC was able to reduce panel size from 6 to 4 and the Center visit during the main phase of the review from 18-20 to 10 days. The EPR received a lot of support from ICRISAT. This part of the experiment worked well.

12

The issue of whether having two separate reviews added value was not as clear cut, and in fact may have put more pressure on the Center. The two chairs did a good job of making sure the separate reviews were coordinated. Francisco Reifschneider said the separate review experiment was started at the request of the Group. The reviews received full support from ICRISAT. Some ExCo members expressed there was value added from having two separate reviews, as did some of the iSC members. However, we must realize and address the challenge of coordination and the extra burden the separate reviews place on the Center. The next two Center reviews are being organized in the combined EPMR format. One issue that needs to be addressed in the joint EPMR format is how to ensure that governance and management issues receive higher attention than has been the practice in EPMRs. One option could be for the chair of the panel to focus on program issues and the vice chair on management issues. John Vercoe stated that the CBC does not support separate reviews and quoted the opinion expressed by the chair of the ICRISAT EMR that the two reviews should be conducted simultaneously as a single review. Adel El-Beltagy said the CDC believes that this was a counter-productive experiment and that combined reviews need to be the norm in the future, with appropriate focus on management issues. Conclusions: • The lessons learned from the experiment with the separate-but-linked external reviews of programs and management should be distilled to improve the review process. • There is merit in maintaining the single panel format for the EPMRs, but with better coordination of program and management components and measures to ensure proper focus on governance and management questions.

Agenda Item 4. Program Matters
4.a. Challenge Programs This agenda item was not discussed during the meeting because of the shortened schedule. It consisted of status reports on the Challenge Programs, which have been posted on the web as part of the documentation for ExCo5.

13

Agenda Item 5. ExCo Business—Brief Updates from Previous ExCo Meetings
This agenda item was not covered during the meeting because of the shortened schedule and will be handled virtually. It included brief verbal updates from the following: 5.a. ExCo/PC -- Strategy for following outcomes of global conferences of relevance to the CGIAR (e.g., CSD-11 and other task forces) 5.b. ExCo/FC -- Analysis of trends in core/non-core resources, restricted/unrestricted funding -- Workshop on long-term financing 5.c. iSC -- Development of strategic framework for CPs 5.d. System Office -- Review of partnership committees -- Proposal on process for appointing CGIAR nominees -- Outcome of System Office workshop 5.e. CBC -- Code of conduct for board members -- Grievance process 5.f. CGIAR Secretariat/CBC -- Board orientation program -- Compensation study

Agenda Item 6. Other Business
6.a. Amendment to ExCo Rules of Procedure ExCo amended its Rules of Procedure to clarify closed sessions and attendance in closed sessions. The amendments are as follows: Amendment to Section II. Definitions: r. “Closed Session” means a session of the Council that is closed to observers other than CGIAR members. Amendment to Section IV. Meetings: 13. The CGIAR Chairman, under special circumstances, could declare a session of the meeting closed. Each CGIAR Member or ExCo Member position can be represented at a closed Executive Council session by a maximum of two persons.

14

6.b. Future ExCo Meetings Franklin Moore observed that ExCo5 was constrained by artificial limits on its meeting time, as well as by Hurricane Isabel, so that important items could not be taken up for debate. He noted that, over the past two years, it has become necessary for ExCo to meet in face-to- face fashion twice per year. This practice should be maintained and each meeting should be more than one day. In addition, the Program and Finance Committees should meet for at least half a day. Moore requested that the Secretariat plan for a minimum of two full days for the next, and perhaps future, combined ExCo/PC/FC meetings.

Agenda Item 7. Closing Session
The Chairman thanked the members for their participation and cooperation in the midst of adverse circumstances surrounding the meeting. He noted that ExCo had fruitful discussions that resulted in clear outcomes that would help facilitate CGIAR’s decision making on key issues.

15

Attachment 1 List of Participants
Fifth Meeting of the CGIAR Executive Council Chairman: Cosponsors: Ian Johnson John Monyo Kevin Cleaver Shantanu Mathur Adel El-Beltagy John Vercoe Mohamad Roozitalab

CDC: CBC: iSC: GFAR: OECD/DAC : Americas Asia-Pacific Europe

FAO World Bank IFAD CDC Chair CBC Chair GFAR Chair (could not attend)

Franklin Moore Hayato Nakajima Jochen de Haas Marina Puccioni Klaus Winkel

U.S.A. Japan Germany (could not attend) Italy Denmark

Developing Countries: Americas Luis Arango Nieto SSA Njabulo Nduli Asia-Pacific Dongyu Qu CWANA Magdy Madkour Regional Fora Abel Al-Nabi Fardous Foundations: Partners: Civil Society Private Sector Peter Matlon

Colombia South Africa China (could not attend) Egypt AARINENA Rockefeller F.

Temporarily Vacant Sam Dryden

PSC Chair

_______________________________________________________________ Executive Secretary, ExCo: CGIAR Secretariat: Francisco Reifschneider Fionna Douglas Manuel Lantin Selçuk Özgediz Ravi Tadvalkar Shey Tata Jason Yauney

16

Speakers: Steve Slack Observers: Robert Bertram Robert Bordonaro Dana Dalrymple Willie Dar Ruben Echeverria Emil Javier Shellemiah Keya Dietrich Leihner Moïse Mensah Uzo Mokwunye Ola Smith Jacob Thoppil Joachim von Braun

USAID FAO USAID ICRISAT IDB iSC iSC Secretariat FAO ISNAR ICRISAT GFAR Canada IFPRI

17

Attachment 2 Revised Agenda
1. Opening Session -- I. Johnson’s Introduction -- Election of Meeting Co-Chair -- Adoption of the Agenda 2. Governance Matters 2.a. Establishing SC (Closed Session) -- Recommendations of SC-SNC (M. Hassan/S. Slack) -- Discussion -- ExCo recommendations to the CGIAR 2.b. Process for Transition from iSC to SC -- Overview (F. Reifschneider) -- Discussion -- ExCo conclusions 2. Governance Matters (Cont’d) 2.c. Restructuring of ISNAR -- Recommendations of the ISNAR Restructuring Team -- Comment from ISNAR Board (M. Mensah) -- Discussion and ExCo Recommendations to the CGIAR 3. Evaluation 3.a. IPGRI EPMR -- Recommendations of ExCo/PC and ExCo/FC -- Discussion and ExCo guidance to CGIAR 3.b. ICRISAT External Reviews -- Recommendations of ExCo/PC and ExCo/FC -- Discussion and ExCo guidance to CGIAR -- Comment on the ICRISAT review process (E. Javier, F. Reifschneider) 2. Governance Matters (Cont’d) 2.d. CGIAR Governance 2.d.1. Process for rotation of ExCo members (S. Özgediz) -- Discussion 2.d.2. GRPC membership (M. Lantin) -- Discussion

18

2.d.3. Financing options for the SC (J.Monyo, K. Cleaver— ExCo/FC) -- Discussion 4. Program Matters (not discussed) 4.a. Challenge Programs -- Status report on CPs (E. Javier, F. Reifschneider) -- Discussion 5. ExCo Business—Brief Updates from Previous ExCo Meetings (not discussed) 5.a. ExCo/PC (M. Puccioni) 5.b. ExCo/FC (K. Cleaver) 5.c. iSC (E. Javier) 5.d. System Office (F. Reifschneider) 5.e. CBC (J. Vercoe) 5.f. CGIAR Secretariat/CBC 6. Other Business 7. Closing Session

19

Attachment 3 ExCo Member Feedback on the handling of Agenda Items at ExCo 5
2.a. Establishing SC

20

2.c. Restructuring of ISNAR

21

2.d. CGIAR Governance

22

3.a. IPGRI EPMR

23

3.b. ICRISAT External Reviews

24