AGR/TAC:IARf93/10.1 THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SIXTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TAC SECRETARIAT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS November 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY Introduction Main Highlights and Recommendations Medium-Term Resource Allocation Process Implications of TAC’s Recommendationson Priorities for Future CGIAR Strategies and Structure CIFOR’s Medium-Term Plan Proposals for 1994-1998 ICARDA External Review Progress on Other Items Towards a CGIAR Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources Future Reviews Other Business Future Meetings RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS Opening Session (Agenda Item 1) Opening Remarks Adoption of the TAC 60 Report Adoption of the Agenda ICARDA External Review (Agenda Item 2) Towards a CGIAR Strategy on Plant Genetic Resources(Agenda Item 3) CIFOR’s Medium-Term Plan Proposals for 1994-98 (Agenda Item 4) Medium-Term Resource Allocation Process (Agenda Item 5) Supplementary Information from Specific Centres Overall Assessmentof MTP Proposals Overview of MTP Proposals CGIAR Priority Considerations Institutional Considerations Systemwide Considerations 1 . 1 1 2 7 11 15 16 20 20 21 21 22 ... . .. 111 111 .. . 111 111 ... iv V V vi vi vi vi vii 1 I 11 .. System Level Recommendations Recommendationsfor 1998 Funding at a US$270 million System Vector Centre Level Considerations Programme Funding at the System Level Reconciliation of TAC’s Recommendationson 1998 Resource Allocation with CGIAR Priorities and Strategies Recommendationsfor 1998 Core Funding at a US$280 million System Vector Coping with a SustainedShortfall of Core Funds in 1998 Transition from 1993 and Pratgressionfrom 1994 towards 1998 TAC’s Recommendationsof 1994 Core Funding and Allocations TAC’s Recommendationsof I!995 Through 1997 Core Funding and Allocations Implications of TAC’s Recommendationson Priorities for Future CGIAR Strategies and Structure (Agenda Item 6) Future Reviews (Agenda Item 7) Other Business (Agenda Item 8) CIP Budget Request Report on the Meeting of the Committee on SustainableDevelopment SPAAR Technical Consultation on an Ecoregional Approach to Agricultural Research CAB1 Review Conference Research on Irrigated Agriculture 23 23 23 25 27 27 27 28 29 30 34 37 43 43 43 44 44 45 Annex Amex Amex Amex 1: 2: 3: 4: List of Participants Agenda List of Documents TAC’s Evaluation and Recommendationson Centre MTP Proposals 111 ... SUMMARY Introduction At TAC 61, the Committee finalized its recommendations on resource allocation in the CGIAR for 1994-98. As part of this process, TAC considered CIFOR’s MediumTerm Plan (MTP) proposals and the responsesof centres to TAC’s request for additional information as contained in the interim commentaries on the draft proposals. Revised interim commentaries were prepared for CIP, CIAT, ICLAFW and INIBAP. The Committee also prepared a revision of Chapter 13 of the Report on CGIAR Priorities and Strategies which dealt with the implications of TAC’s recommendations on priorities for future CGIAR strategies and structure. TAC also considered the report of the External Programme and Management Review of ICARDA, progress in developing the CGIAR strategy for plant genetic resources, future reviews, dates and locations of future meetings, and other business, which included a special budget request from CIP and a letter from Ambassador Blake on research on irrigated agriculture. Main Highlights and Recommendations Medium-Term Resource Allocation Process TAC simultaneously considered all centres’ MTP proposals and the responses provided by the centres to TAC’s interim commentaries. It reconciled the MTP proposals with System priorities and made recommendationson resource allocation 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 assignedto each centre would be justified. This comprehensive review, comprising all centres, completed TAC’s discussion of CGIAR priorities. TAC also prepared a revised interim commentary on the medium-term proposals of CIP, CIAT, ICLARM and INIBAP. Second, TAC evaluated the MTP proposal of each centre in accordancewith a set of five equally-weighted criteria: the strategic character of the centre’s proposed research programme; the programme’s potential for breakthroughs; cent&s past performance and likelihood of sustainedsuccess;the centre’s external environment, institutional health and quality of management; and, finally, the centre’s collaboration with NARS, other IARCs and advancedinstitutions. iv 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. Also, aware of the limitations inherent to MTPs being developed at centre level, TAC considered a number of inter-centre and System issueswhich were not adequately addressed, and formulated a number of recommendations of funding of Systemwide programme initiatives within the overall funding assumptionsfor 1998. TAC subsequently finalized its recommendations on resource allocation in the CGIAR. It made two types of recommendations; centre-specific funding, and programme funding for particular CGIAR Systemwide initiatives. These recommendations were made at two aggregate levels of assumedcore resources in 1998, i.e., US$ 270 million and US$280 million, expressed in 1992 dollars. TAC also considered the scenario of a signiticant, sustainedshortfall in core funding in 1998, e.g., at 10% below the base level of US$270 million. TAC concluded that the implications of such a scenario could not adequately be addressedby budgetary procedures only. Sustainedunder-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 sequenceof stripe reviews, of reviews of delivery mechanismsin the CGIAR and ad hoc reviews of possibilities of other structural adjustments. These reviews would be undertaken with a view to achieving the necessarysavings, while assuring the maintenance of the System’s integrity at a significantly lower level of core funding. Implications of TAC’s Recommend&ions on Priorities for Future CGIAR Strategies and Structure Chapter 13 of TAC’s Report on CGLAR Priorities and Strategies had been * presented to the CGIAR at MTM’92 as a working draft. The CGIAR had endorsed the broad directions of the strategies and structural options, as proposed by TAC, pending a coherent proposal on how to implement the ecoregional concept and the future structure of the CGIAR. TAC discussedthe nature of the revisions needed to this chapter, taking into account progress made in the development of the ecoregional concept and its implementation since MTM’92, and the information provided in this regard in the centres’ MTP proposals. Recent progress made by TAC and the Group in discussing priorities and strategies for research on livestock, rice, banana and plantain, coconut, fisheries and forestry provided further inputs for the revision of Chapter 13. TAC made specific recommendations on how the ecoregional concept could be implemented and considered institutional options for research on global commodities, production sectors and subjectmatter areas, The Committee also proposed a.series of approachesfor future analysesof System priorities and structural modalities. TAC intends to undertake a series of acrosscentre/System stripe reviews on significant components of CGIAR activities. V CIFOR’s Medium-Term Plan Proposals for 1994-1998 In its MTP, CIFOR proposed four major research programmes dealing with Policy Development; Management and Conservation of Natural Forests; Reforestation of Degraded Lands; and Products and Markets. Three classesof activity were indicated with high priority work to be undertaken at the base resource envelope of US$7.6 million. The research programmes covered a total of 63 problem/study areas. TAC considered CIFOR’s MTP to be ambitious and to reflect an appreciation of the wide range of issuescovered by Agenda 21 of UNCED. The interactive process followed by the Centre in formulating its MTP was commended. There was a need to reduce the large list of research topics presented in the MTP to a manageablelist of interrelated problems on which CIFOR would work. The emphasison policy and socioeconomics research was noted and TAC asked for clarification of CIFOR’s relationship with IFPRI in view of the latter’s primary responsibility for policy research in the CGIAR. CIFOR was also asked to elaborate on its procedure for selecting collaborators and its role as a catalyst, initiator, supporter or coordinator of research activities. TAC expressedconcern about the timing of the development of the various programmes and the intended rate of expansion of the Centre. ICARDA External Review TAC reviewed the report of the Third External Programme and Management Review of ICARDA. The report provided an insightful and constructive assessmentof the Centre’s strategy, its research programmes and management. The Committee was encouraged by the response of the Board and managementof ICARDA which indicated broad agreement with the many suggestionsmade by the Panel. TAC was also pleased to note that the major managementproblems evident during the 1988 External Review in general had been resolved. TAC commended ICARDA on its research programme and support services which were held in high esteem by the NARS in the WANA region. However, the Committee shared the Panel’s concern that the Centre should pay greater attention to priority setting and the assessmentof the impact of its programmes. TAC was pleased to note the Panel’s positive assessment of ICARDA’s outreach programme, but fully supported the Panel’s view that the Centre should establish explicit criteria to guide its participation in special project-funded activities. Given the projected financial constraints in the CGIAR, TAC endorsed the Panel’s suggestionthat ICARDA should not broaden its mandate to embrace, in any substantive way, the research needs of the Central Asian Republics. TAC noted that managementpolicies and procedures at ICARDA had improved substantially since the 1988 External Review and encouraged ICARDA to speed up the introduction of project-based budgeting involving greater devolution of authority within the Centre. Also, various options for structural change in the Cent&s management were under active consideration by the Board of Trustees. vi Progress on Other Items - Towards a CGIAR Strategy for Pht Genetic Resources TAC noted that the CGIAR System was the leading actor in international plant genetic resources conservation and related research. Germplasm collection, conservation, characterization and utilization, is an important activity at 13 CGIAR Centres that are often located in, or close to, the Centre of origin of the crop concerned, and a primary responsibility of IBPGR. Expenditure on plant genetic resources was US$ 23 million in 1992 and required 63 SSY, of which IBPGRs share was US!§ 9 million and 22 SSY. Becauseof the scale of the CGIAR System’s involvement in genetic resources conservation and research, and becauseof the System’s knowledge of the ways in which genotypes can be defined, TAC considered that the CGIAR should not simply be a passive participant in the international debate on plant genetic resources and biodiversity. Rather the System should be proactive in initiating thinking about the principles that are emerging concerning the ownership of genetic resources. TAC considers that there may be a need for a centralized responsibility for the System’s genetic resources commitment and to provide a mechanism that is able to speak on this subject-matter area for the whole System. To accelerate the process of defining TAC’s recommendations on a systemwide strategy for plant genetic resources, TAC is commissioning a strategic stripe study of genetic resources work in the CGIAR. Future Reviews TAC noted the timing and arrangementsfor the organization of the IIMI Review. Planning of the Fourth External Reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA would continue, in consultation with the Centres. TAC endorsed proposals for conducting the following inter-centre reviews: plant genetic resources, to be conducted as soon as possible; public policy and public management, to be conducted in 1994; and roots and tubers, to be conducted simultaneously with the external reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA in 1995. Other Business The Committee considered the request from CIP’s Director General that TAC revisit the issue of a one-time payment of US$ 950,000 for unusual cost increasesduring the period 1989-91, which the Committee, at TAC 59, had recommended be granted to CIP during 1993. This payment had not yet been made. After revisiting the matter, TAC concluded that the causesunderlying its original recommendations were unchanged and the Committee re-affirmed its earlier recommendation. TAC also received a report of the inaugural meeting of the Committee on Sustainable Development which had been organized to addressissues arising from Agenda 21 as a follow up to UNCED. Furthermore, the Committee received reports on vii the outcome of the Special Programme for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) Technical Consultation on an Fcoregional Approach to Agricultural Research, and the CAB1 Review Conference. TAC also discusseda letter from Ambassador Blake on research on irrigated agriculture. Future Meetings The following dates and venues were considered and approved: TAC TAC TAC TAC 62 63 64 65 18-23 October 1993 21-27 March 1994 20-26 June 1994 17-22 October 1994 IFPRI, Washington DC, USA FAO, Rome, Italy WARDA, Bouake, C&e d’Ivoire IFPRI, Washington DC, USA Tentative dates were noted as follows: TAC 66 TAC 67 6-12 March 1995 a seven day period between 1l-25 July 1995 venue to be identified venue to be identified RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 1. The 61st meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was held from 27 June to 6 July 1993 at the International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka, with Dr. Alexander McCalla in the Chair. Among the participants were 15 TAC members, representativesof FAO and the World Bank, observers representing members and institutes of the CGIAR, and staff of the CGIAR and TAC Secretariats (Annex 1). Opening Session(Agenda Item 1) Opening Remarks 2. Dr. ‘McCalla declared the 61st meeting of TAC formally open and expressedhis appreciation to the managementand staff of IIMI for hosting the meeting. He then welcomed TAC members, specifically two members who were attending their first TAC meeting: Prof. Andre Berkaloff from France; and Sir Ralph Riley from the UK. 3. Dr. McCalla stated that the agenda for TAC 61 was particularly significant as it included the determination of the final resource-allocation recommendations for the 18 CGIAR centres, after the reconciliation of their Medium-Term Plan (MTP) proposals with Systemwide priorities, and TAC’s revision of Chapter 13 of the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies: implications of TAC’s recommendationson priorities for future CGIAR strategies and structure. The meeting would also consider the report of the ICARDA External Review, a revised draft on the CGIAR strategy for plant genetic resources, and CIFOR’s draft MTP proposals. 4. Dr. McCalla then invited Dr. Roberto Lenton, Director General of IIMI to address the meeting. Dr. Lenton welcomed TAC members and all other participants, stating that he greatly appreciated the selection of IIMI as the venue for TAC 61. The meeting would provide IIMI with an opportunity to observe TAC at close quarters, and would also enable TAC to advise IIMI on how it should best meet the challenges confronting it in the execution of its mandate. Adoption of the TAC 60 Report 5. The report of the 60th meeting of TAC was adopted with some minor amendments. Adoption of the Agenda In addition to the items listed on the agenda, five items were considered for 6. inclusion under ‘other business’: CIP’s 1993 special budget request; a report on the meeting of the Committee on SustainableDevelopment; a report on a SPAAR Technical Consultation on the Ecoregional Approach to Agricultural Research; CAB1 Review Conference; and Ambassador Blake’s letter on research on irrigated agriculture. ICARDA External Review (Agenda Item 2) 7. The item was introduced by Dr. M&alla who stated that the review was chaired by Dr. Jock Anderson, and that the main phase was completed in May 1993. He welcomed the representatives of ICARDA, Drs. Enrico Porceddu, Board Chair, Nasrat Fadda, Director General, and Aart van Schoonhoven, Deputy Director General, and then invited Dr. Anderson to present his report. 8. Dr. Anderson indicated that his introductory comments would be very brief, in that he would prefer to respond to the discussion on the report as it developed. He also pointed out that the report did not follow the {conventionalstyle, in as much as the panel chose to express its views on.ICARDA mainly in the form of suggestions, rather than the standard recommendation format. The report contained 135 positive suggestions, many of which addressedimportant issues relating to tlhe future development of ICARDA. Dr. Anderson expresseddisappointment that the Centre’s preliminary response to the report had, so far, not considered some of the more important issues and suggestions made by the panel. 9. Dr. Anderson then outlined some of the key issues which, in the panel’s view, were central to the future development of ICARDA. ICARDA’s capacity to arrest the decline in donor support was fundamental to any or all other initiatives which might be undertaken to improve the effectiveness of the Centre to addressthe research needs of arid agriculture in the WANA region. Referring to the research programme, Dr. Anderson highlighted the importance of research impact studies and, in commenting on the Germplasm Enhancement Programmes, emphasizedthe importance of measuring farmer adoption, rather than simply relying on data describing the official release of varieties by the NARS. He suggestedthat the Centre needed to develop a clear vision and strategy for livestock research, that the focus of the Natural ResourcesManagement Programme should be narrowed, and that ICARDA should establish explicit criteria to guide its participation in Outreach Programmes which are supported by special project funds. On Centre management, Dr. Anderson emphasizedthe need for greater 10. delegation of authority to the programme leaders and the introduction of project budgeting to facilitate more efficient research programme management. He reiterated the panel’s conclusion that a restructuring of ICARDA’s research into two programmes would have much merit and should be seriously considered by the Centre, but added that there was not consensusamong the panel as to whether or not the post of Deputy Director General for Research [DDG (R)] should be retained; in general terms, Dr. Anderson stressed the need to reduce the cost of Centre management. Dr. Porceddu thanked the panel for its very comprehensive report which, in his 11. view, contained many pertinent suggestions, some of which the Board was already addressing. Stressing that ICARDA had changed very substantially since its establishment, he reflected the ‘Board’s opennessto further change and, by way of example, indicated that its decision to introduce project budgeting would meet the panel’s concern for greater devolution of authority in ICARDA. He also indicated that the Board 3 plans to have a full one-day discussion on the matters raised in the External Review report, concerning the efficacy of. the Board’s function. 12. Dr. Fadda indicated that the report was very comprehensive, and he wished to thank the panel for the transparency of their deliberations which led to a better understanding of the issues and challenges facing the Centre. He then made brief comments on some of the main issues raised in the report, noting that the Centre fully agreed with most of the panel’s suggestions. Dr. Fadda stated that ICARDA’s Outreach Programme involved more than 30 collaborative activities with NARS across 15 countries in the region. He indicated that the panel’s recommendation on irrigated agriculture was in line with the Centre’s view, as outlined in the 1994-98 Medium-Term Plan, and that the Centre’s work on legumes (food and forage legumes) was consistent with the recommendations of the joint IFPRUICARDA study which TAC requested following the 1988 External Programme and Management Review (EPMR). Accepting that resources devoted to Livestock and Rangeland Management Research were less than optimal, he indicated that information on rangeland managementwas being collected at several sites across WANA, with a view to developing a strategy for this research area. Referring to the panel’s comments on the quality of research in the Outreach Programme, he pointed out that the Centre tried to balance NARS demand and donor pressure within the framework of the Centre’s mandate; however, he cited NARS demand as the most telling measure of the relevance of ICARDA’s Outreach Programme. On the question of expanding the Centre’s Outreach Programme to member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Central Asia, Dr. Fadda agreed with the panel’s view that such expansion would have to be based on special project funds; however, he added that Azerbaijan, Tajikstan and Turkministan presented new and very relevant research challenges on high altitude, highland and lowland agriculture. 13. The Chairman then asked Dr. Raoul Dudal, TAC Liaison Scientist for ICARDA, to open the discussion. Dr. Dudal stated that, in his judgement, the report was insightful and contained many good suggestions, He singled out two important issues for clarification and further discussion. On the panel’s suggestion to restructure ICARDA’s research activities into two programmes, i.e., (i) Resource Management and (ii) Crop Germplasm, he asked if the rationale for this proposal was based on research interaction considerations, or on a programme managementbasis. He also sought elaboration of the Centre’s response to the panel’s assessment of ICARDA’s role in Central Asia, in that he understood from the Centre’s interim responsethat developments in this context were already under way. Several issueswere raised by TAC members in the ensuing discussion. A 14. number of members asked about the status of the research on faba bean which had been devolved to the NARS in North Africa. The Centre’s plans for research on legumes were also considered, and reference was made to the positive impact of this work in Turkey. Some TAC members felt that the joint IFPRUICARDA study on lentils did not seem to be very probing. The management structure of research in ICARDA was discussedas was the 15. need for close collaboration between research on Natural ResourcesManagement and research within the commodity programmes. The panel’s suggestionto merge ICARDA’s 4 four research programmes into two, i.e;, Crop Germplasm and Natural Resources Management, was also discussedin reference to the potential impact of ICARDA’s Outreach Programme. Particular mention w,asmade of the panel’s concern that some of the activities in the Highlands Programme may not have sustainableimpact. The importance of relevant impact studies was emphasizedby a number of TAC members. Clarification was also sought on the degree of cooperation between ICARDA and IBPGR on plant genetic resources. Reduced donor support to the Centre was discussedand questions were raised about ICARDA’s fund,-raising strategy, and the Centre’s capacity to attract support from the Gulf States. 16. Dr. Anderson responded to the questions raised in the discussion and reiterated, in reference to specific sections of the report, the panel’s views on the issuesdiscussed. Responding to the question on the broad lessonsto be learned from ICARDA’s experience in the devolution of its faba bean research, Dr. Anderson intimated that the issue was of such importance to CGIAR policy that it merited a comprehensive wisdom/detailed guidelines paper, based on ICY&DA’s experience in this particular devolution exercise. 17. Drs. Fadda and van Schoonhovenreplied to the questions raised, and stated that ICARDA did have a policy on project budgeting and that responsibility for its development and implementation was now transferred to the DDG (R). Any expansion of ICARDA’s work to Central Asia would be dependenton the availability of special project funds and limited to germplasm exchange, plant pathology, training and information services. Dr. Fad& stated that the ICARDA Board of Trustees was unanimous in its decision to transfer the Faba Bean Research Programme to Morocco and, in its view, it was still too early to draw firm conclusions an the successof this devolution exercise. On the question of restructuring the four research programmes, Dr. Fadda informed the meeting that the Centre agrees with the panel’s proposal and, as a first step, the Cereals and Legumes Programmes would be merged in the near future. As’ to the focus and impact of the Farm Resource Management Programme, Dr. van Schoonhoven stressedthe difficulties faced by NARS to secure funds for work in this area. Responding to the questions raised about the Outreach Programme and the outposting of staff, he stated that the Centre faced acute difftculties in the current climate of fuiancial austerity. Firstly, outposting staff would reduce the critical mass of scientists at headquarters and, secondly, the cost and difficulties in transferring staff had to be taken into account. 18. Dr. McCalla, drawing the discussion to a close, stated that the panel’s report was positive and penetrating and contrasted strongly with the rather negative 1988 EPMR. He thanked Dr. Anderson for his presentation and added that the panel’s insightful comments on the external review process (Chapter 5) would be considered by TAC’s Standing Committee on External Reviews. The Chair ,thankedthe ICARDA representatives for responding to the presentation and the questions raised. TAC offers the following commentary, which was prepared with inputs from the 19. CGIAR Secretariat on the managementaspects, to supplement the panel’s report: 5 COMMENTARY ON THE EXTERNAL REVIEW OF ICARDA 20. TAC expressesits appreciation to Dr. Jock Anderson, Chair, and the members of the EPMR Panel for a comprehensiveand insigh@ assessmentof ICXRDA. The report provides a good appraisal of the Centre’s strategy, its research programmes and Centre management. 21. Cognisant of the critical nature of the 1988 External Programme and Management Reviews of ICARDA, particularly in relation to Centre management, TAC is pleased to note that the nuzjor managementproblems evident at that time in general have been resolved. The Committee is also pleased to note the panel’s conclusions that the raison d ‘etre for ICARLIA ‘s existenceis as valid today as it was 20 years ago when its establishment was first mooted, that its mandate, mission and goals are still relevant, and that the Centre’s strategic plan is appropriately in tune with the major research needs of dryrcrnd agriculture in the WANA region. 22. The panel’s report contains fao formal recommendationsbut embodies many important and relevant suggestions. TAC strong@ urges ICARDA to also carefully consider these suggestions in addition to the recommendationswhich, in general terms, it endorses. The Committee is encouraged by the Centre’s responsewhich appears to indicate broad agreement with the panel’s findings and suggestions. However, at times, it is not clear from the Centre ‘s response if ICXRDA agrees or disagrees with the panel’s recommendations and suggestions. TAC suggeststhat the Board of ICARDA should take a clear stance on the many suggestionscontained in the report. The Research Programme 23. TAC is pleased to note the panel’s conclusion that, in general terms, ICARDA s Research Programme and support services are held in high esteemby NARS in the WMA region. The Centre ‘s strong commitment to work closely with its NART partners, and where possible to devolve appropriate componentsof its Research Programme to them, is commendable. The Committee is also pleased that the panel has judged ICYA’s Research Programmes to be of a high standard and, in general terms, appropriate to the needs of the WANA region. However, TAC wishes to draw attention to the following issues on which the 24. panel has expressedsome concerns: Priority setting: TAC notes the panel’s observation that ICARDA has a well 25. defined procedure for setting priorities within programmes, but that ICARDA lacks a transparent and objective mechanism to determine and apply resource allocation priorities across programmes. Impact assessment:TAC shares the panel’s view that ICARDA should attach 26. greater attention to impact assessment and make it an integral part of its Research Programme development, With respect to the impact of the Cereal and Legume Germplasm Enhancement Programmes, ICXRDA should expand the range of indicators it uses, rather than simply relying on the number of varieties released. 6 27. Livestock research: while the Committee generally supports the panel’s feeling about the limited support given to livestock research at ICARDA, it is also aware of the difficulties which the Centre hasfaced in attracting funds to expand the Livestock Research Programme. TAC agrees with the panel’s suggestion that the Centre should formulate a clear strategy on livestock resea,rch, including an assessmentof IC’A’s role in rangeland management and forage legume research. This should be done in collaboration with, and in the context of, the ongoing CGIAR-wide efforts to develop a unified strategy and integrated programmes for livestock research. 28. Farm Resource Management: TAC shares the panel’s view about the lack of focus in the Farm Resource Management Programme (FRMP), and suggeststhat ICXRDA needs to concentrate the programme on well-defined priority targets. 29. Outreach: TAC is pleased to note the panel’s assessmentthat ICARDA ‘s Outreach Programme is broad based and generally well received by its NARS partners. However, it notes the panel’s concern that some componentsof the outreach programme are somewhat beyond ICARDA ‘s mandate, and fully supports the panel’s view that the Centre should establish explicit criteria to guide its partic@ttion in special project--funded activities. 30. TAC is conscious of the interests of some countries in the region that ICARDA should expand its Highlands Programme to embrace the newly established Central Asian republics. However, it endorses the panel’s *feeling that it would be unwise of IC’A, at this point in time, to broaden its mum&e to encompass,in any substantive way, the research needs of the Central Asian Republics, given projected financial constraints in the CGIAR. 31. Research on irri@ion: TAC endorses the panel’s recommendation that ICARDA, with an ecoregional focus on the dry sub-tropical winter rainfall areas, should be encouraged to work on water-saving techniques and consen&on strategies in irrigated agn’culture, and on supplementary irrigation where appropriate. . Centre Management TAC is pleased to note that the serious managementproblems ICARDA faced at 32. the time of the 1988 External Review have been generally resolved, and that the positive developments reported by the 1990 Interim M’anagementReview of ICARDA have continued. The panel points out that IC’A has put in place managementpolicies and systemsof accountability which were previot&y lacking, but that these may have been applied too tightly. TAC notes ICXRDA ‘s response that it is in the process of introducing a project-based budgeting system involving decentralization of authority, and therefore some relaxation of controls. Research planning and review: It is evident, from the panel’s report and the 33. Centre’s response, that research planning and review occur af several levels in ICARDA. Nonetheless, TAC concurs with the panel that internally-managed reviews should be conducted with rigour and linked with pn’on’@sem’ng,planning and resource allocation processes. 7 34. Organizational structure: The panel made some usefil suggestionsfor streamlining ICXRDA ‘s research managementstructure which included the consolidation of the four research programmes into two: a Resource Management Programme; and a Crop Germplasm Programme. TAC is pleased that various options for structural change are under consideration at ICARDA, as described by the Director General during the discussion of the report at TAC 61, and that these do not dtjfer greatly from the proposals made by the panel. 35. Financiul strategy: While TAC agrees with ICARDA’s supposition, that “financial flows are cyclical in nature”, it cannot conclude, as the Centre has, that ICXRDA has “passed the midpoint in the austerity period n and suggestst&further austerity may lie ahead. Although financial managementat ICARDA has improved overall, ICYRDA neea3 to re-assessits fund-raising strategy becauseit cannot rely on its current jkancial reserves in the long term. ICARDA should limit the scale of its activities within annuallyavailable financial resources. 36. Human resource matters: Theseare closely linked with the research planning ana’ budgetary matters noted above,.and several were raised in the panel’s report, repeating some of the concerns mentionedpreviously in the 1988 EPMR and 1990 Interim EMR. The Board should pay special attention to ICARDA’s incentive systems, to ensure that they promote excellence and help motivate staff. In addition, it should examine closely the high number of internationally-recruited personnel in administration and finance. This could be interpreted either as ‘over-staflng ’ or as misclassification of stafs into the ‘international’ category. ICYRDA has made someprogress in reducing the numbers in this group, but should accelerate its eflorts to reduce the cost of administering the Centre. The Review Process The panel oflered views on ways of improving the CGIAR’s review process, in 37. Chapter 5 of the report. The TAC Standing Committee on Ektemal Reviews will consider the issues raised and the suggestionsmade. Towards a CGIAR Strategy on Plant Genetic Resources (Agenda Item 3) The Committee considered a paper entitled ‘The Role of the CGIAR in Plant 38. Genetic Resources: Towards a Systemwide Strategy’, which was the latest revision by IBPGR of a series of draft working papers on this topic. The previous version ‘Changing Responsibilities and Roles for Plant Genetic Resourceswithin the CGIAR System’ had been discussedby the Committee at TAC 59 during a joint sessionwith Centre Directors and Board Chairs, and comments received at that meeting had been incorporated into the current version. Dr. Nasrat Fadda, Chair of the Centre Directors’ Committee, presented the 39. document and outlined a number of new issuesarising from a recent meeting of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources (PGR). The paper highlighted international 8 needs for PGR conservation and the move towards global cooperation on PGR, in which national programmes would be the basic building blocks and the concept of national sovereignty over PGR would be recognized. The paper also outlined the present and perceived future role of the CGIAR centres 7withinthe global PGR conservation effort, with respect to: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 coverage of CGIAR activities in PGR conservation and utilization; legal status of CGIAR germplasm collections and associatedinformation; contribution of CGIAR centres to global cooperation; conservation strategies; germplasm health and exchange; genebank documentation and information; research and training. 40. The paper emphasizedthe need for Systemwide planning and coordination of PGR activities in the CGIAR, and noted the importance of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources in this area. The provision of adequatefinancial resources was considered essential for a coherent and efficient discharge of CGIAR responsibilities in the conservation of PGR. Among the issues identified as requiring further review and clarification were: 41. the concept of PGR as the ‘heritage of mankind’; the implications of the widely-accepted principle of national sovereignty over PGR on multilateral free-accesssystems for germplasm exchange; trusteeship of germplasm; and the implications of the Biodiversity Convention which would soon become a legally-binding agreement and serve as the main instrument for regulating accessto PGR and for ensuring compensation to countries of origin. TAC concluded that the revised paper should still be regarded as a working 42. document becauseof the many outstanding issues. Consequently, TAC decided to give only an informal feedback to Centre Directors. The Committee endorsed a proposal to broaden the scope of the CGIAR’s involvement in genetic resources to include some aspectsof forestry and animal germplasm. TAC suggestedthat work on animal and forest genetic resources should be confined to those livestock and forestry species of economic importance and in which the CGIAR had a special interest. Dr. Mohamed Zehni, from FAO, drew TAC’s attention to the outcome of the 43. most recent meeting of the FAO Commission on PGR. He noted that the FAO Legal Office was studying the issue of trusteeship and had suggestedthat the concept of ‘heritage of mankind’ should be substituted by the concept of ‘common concern’ or 9 ‘common interest’. The FAO Commission had also questioned the concept of ‘trusteeship’ as proposed by the CGIAR centres, and had requested clarification of the concept, particularly as it related to ownership. 44. TAC noted that the importance attached to PGR in the CGIAR was indicated by the high proportion of CGIAR core resources allocated to germplasm collection and conservation activities. One member felt that the CGIAR seemedto be playing a passive rather than a proactive role, and assertedthat the CGIAR should act as a leader in this field. Dr. Don Plucknett of the CGIAR Secretariat pointed out that the CGIAR was the 45. second largest holder of PGR in the world. While individual centres were doing a reasonablejob, the CGIAR System was, in his opinion, currently poorly organized in this respect. He suggestedthat the genetic resources units at the centres should be transformed into a faculty of genetic resources centres and coordinated as a Systemwide programme. 46. After further discussion, TAC offered the following informal commentary on the revised strategy document. INFORMAL COMMENTARY ON A CGIAR STRATEGY ON GENETIC RESOURCES 47. TAC has studied the latest version of the paper entitled ‘The Role of CGIAR In _ Plant Genetic Resources: Towanis a SystemwideStrategy’ and offers the following comments. TAC recognizes the enormous responsibility borne by thoseparticipating in 48. genetic resources conservation and research. As pointed out in the paper, the significance attached to these activities worldwide has grown over the last decade. There are now rapid moves being made to develop global policies which will be implemented by international agreement and will lead to national legislation. CGZARDirectors General and their stafsare to be congratulated for their early 49. recognition of the importance of germplasm collech*onand preservation. Without their work, much important genetic material would have been lost. The preliminary pan of the paper describes the involvement of the CGIAR System 50. in genetic resources conservation. However, this seemsto underestimate the role of the Systemsince in 1992, there was an expenditure of US$23 million with 63 senior scientists employed in TAC category 1.2 (germplasm collection, conservation and evaluation): of these commitments, US$9 million were spent by IBPGR, which employed 22 senior scientists, and the remaining efsort was distributed over I3 other institutions, ofren located in or close to the centre of origin of the crops concerned. The CGIAR Systemis the leading player in international genetic resources conservation and in related research. The CGIAR will continue its commitment to plant genetic resources work for the 51. foreseeable future, and a mission statement along the following lines may be appropriate: 10 “On behalf of the world community,.the CGIAR is committed to the conservation oft ana’ research on, genetic resources of plant speciesfocusing on crops and their relatives on which it undertakes research. ’ The CGIAR accepts this responsibility as part of its general concern for sustainability and for the conservation of natural resources. It anticipates that it will make a significant contribution to the development of poor countn*es. In addition, TAC is encouraged to note that the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resourceshas recommended the extension of the CGIAR’s responsibility beyond the plant kingdom. 52. It has been suggestedby some of those concerned with the development of international policies for genetic resources conservation, that the form of legislation to protect ownership remains among the principal issuesto be resolved. TAC accepts that there should be no violation of the ownership rights of nations to the genetic resources of their territories. Nevertheless, TAC emphasizesthat ownership can only be fully protected when there is unambiguous definition of the >material possessed. Thus, the legislation can only be framed in the context of the scientific definition of the uniquenessof a genotype. Technology must precisely define the geno&le, if necessaryshowing it to be di$erent from that of an ostensibly similar phenotype coming from another territory. Although outside its responsibility, the CGIAR will provide, as far as it can, some technical support for agencies that might be created to help countries without any current capability in genotype definition. To this end, the CGIAR @stem can provide a large research base to demonstrate how genorypes can be defined. It must be recognized that the technologies that can be usedfor this purpose are dynamic; new methodsfor characterizing genotypes are reported frequently and involve DNA mapping, sequencing and amplijication. Consequently, the descriptive processes used under any legislation will require frequent redefinition. 53. Other research needs concern the developmentof an understanding of population and ecological genetics that will determine the size and structure of populations or genepools conserved, to maximize the likelihood that an adequate sample of genetic variation is retained. This will be particularly true of in situ conservation when it will also be important to understand the reproductive biology, life cycles and population structures of the species under protection. Such knowledge will often require further research. Because of the scale of the CGIAR System’sinvolvement in genetic resources 54. conse?vah*on and research, and because of the System’sknowledge of the ways in which genotypes can be defined, TAC considers that the CGIAR should not simply be a passive participant in the international debate on plant genetic resources and biodiversity. Rather, the Systemshould be, for example, proactive in initiating thinking about the emerging principles on the ownership of genetic resources. Paragraphs 46 to 49 of the IBPGR paper essentially deal with the coordination of 55. the activities of dtrerent centres. They constitute an essentially conservative approach and in so far as the paper is addressed to a “Systemwidestrategy n they make a limited impact. 11 56. TAC believes that the Systemshould consider whether there are ways in which its impact on genetic resources conservation can be made more apparent to emphasizethe CGIAR’s commitment and so increase its influence in the debate on genetic resources. In turn, a higher profile could lead to a greater commitment offunds to the genetic resources work of the CGIAR. 57. The aims of the Systemshould be the increased eficiency of its genetic resources (GR) activities; this to be accompanied by an overall enlargement of such work, for which a number of options are possible. 58. Numerous scenarios could be written by which GR work could be promoted to the public at large and especially to donors, who must be assured of the protection of the System’s commitment and genuine devothn to its GR responsibilities. All schemeswould require some means of protecting GR work from the rigour of uncertain funding at the centres. There would need to be a central responsibility, probably embodied in a single individual, to safeguard the System’scommitment to GR and to speakfor the whole System. Furthermore, TAC is unclear whether the status of GR workers at the centres is su-ciently well regarded and feels that there must be a mechanismfor ensuring the high prior@ which the CGIAR has given to this activity. Whatever strategy the Systemagrees should be followed, it is of the utmost 59. importance that conclusions should be reached as quickly as possible. Too much time has already been spent without reaching a convincing position. The messagecoming from the CGIAR must be that biodiversity is of very high priority to the System. 60. To accelerate the process of defining TAC’s recommendationson genetic resources strategies, it is proposed that a strategic stripe study should be organized as quickly as possible. CIFOR’s Medium-Term Plan Proposals for 1994-98 (Agenda Item 4) 61. CIFOR’s MTP proposals were presented by Dr. Jeffrey Sayer, Director General, with assistancefrom Dr. John Palmer, consultant to CIFOR. Apologies were conveyed from Dr. Bo Bengtsson, Chairman of the CIFOR Board, who was unable to attend the meeting. Dr. Sayer stated that the MTP was rather long and looked like a shopping list, 62. since it was an attempt to reflect the wide variety of views and advice received during very detailed consultations. However, a revised version would be produced within three weeks for Board discussion and approval. CIFOR proposed four major research programmes: Policy Development 63. (Programme 1); Management and Conservation of Natural Forests (Programme 2); Reforestation of Degraded Lands (Programme 3); and Products and Markets (Programme 4), which would be supported by Programme 5 - Research Support and Information, comprising information, library, publications, training and computing services. The research programmes covered a total of 63 problem/study areas. In the 12 MTP, CIFOR proposed three classesof activity; high priority work which could be undertaken with core funds at the base resource envelope (US$7.6 million); high priority work costing approximately US$2.3 million which could not be funded with core funds at the base resource envelope, and which would therefore be financed with complementary funds; and work which woulld particularly involve specialized research institutes in industrialized countries, becauseof the technical nature of the research and the established record of the institutes, and for which complementary funding would be sought. 64. CIFOR aimed to help alleviate poverty and stimulate income generation through socioeconomic and policy research to improve land use and the development of techniques for optimum management of forests, trees and degraded lands, including better utilization of wood and non-wood products with emphasison multiple-end use. 65. Dr. Sayer stated that CIFOR’s greatest impact should be its influence on government policies regarding the organization of forestry activities. In this respect, CIFOR’s advantagesincluded: its considerable expertise in economics, policy and other non-technical aspectsof forestry; its,capacity to conduct and compare studies on policies that had succeededin particular countries; its biophysical work which would be a function of policy work for identifying new directions in forest resource management; and its work on tree improvement to develop new opportunities which focused on adaptive rather than the most productive species. 66. Dr. Sayer gave a brief outline of the structure of CIFOR. He said that a flat hierarchy of management would be adopted initially, with a managementteam comprised of the Programme Directors, the Director of Administration and Finance and the Chief Scientist. He speculatedthat in two to three years there might be two Deputy DirectorsGeneral, one for each of the two major consolidated programmes around which CIFOR’s research activities would be grouped. Initially, most of the research scientists would be based at headquarters in Bogor, while the research activities would be executed at various sites in partnership with NARS and other collaborators. In ascertaining the impact of forestry research, CIFOR would focus on 67. assessmentmethods and would seek collaboration with IFPRI on socioeconomic and policy issues, and ISNAR in training and evialuatingthe work of NARS, with the objective of boosting NARS’ research capability and improving their mode of allocating scarce resources. The discussion was opened by Dr. Hans Gregersen, TAC Liaison Scientist for 68. CIFOR. He stated that he had enjoyed readfig the MTP document and he commended the wide consultations. He expressedhis concern about the proposal to assign 1.5 SSY to activity 1S, location and types of global forest resources, and he asked for details on: the development of links with IFPRI and the Centro Agronomic0 Tropical de Investigation y Ensenanxa (CATIE); and on how CIFOR would tackle the lack of capacity, especially in African NARS; the role of CIFOR in training with respect to ISNAR and the Research and Training Unit of the FAO Forestry Department; how CIFOR ‘nodes’ would evolve over a period of five years, and the issues and achievementson which CIFOR would like to be assessedat the end of the MTP period.. 13 69. In the discussion, TAC members asked how CIFOR would anticipate and deal with controversial issues such as labelling of timber from sustainably-managedforests; how future priority-setting exercises would affect the proposals in the MTP; how CIFOR would avoid the appearanceof favouritism, in view of any omissions in the list of potential collaborators given in the MTP. Questions were also raised regarding the rationale for setting aside 11 SSY for collaborating with advanced country institutions; CIFOR’s ability to sustain its growth rate even at the level of priority ‘a’ activities at the base resource envelope; the relevance of the ecoregional approach for forestry research; the proposed flat managementstructure; and the role of the Chief Scientist with respect to the Programme Directors. 70. The FAO representative advised that, to generate and sustain credibility as an adviser to developing countries on socio-political issuesin forest management, CIFOR should be seen to possessan impartial and analytical approach. 71. In responding to the issuesraised in the discussion, Dr. Sayer explained that 1 SSY could be used to fund six scientists in Bogor on a short-term or part-time basis at the rate of US$30,000 per year. The actual amount spent would be determined by the duration of contracts and life of projects. He expectedthat many partners, such as the USA Forest Service, C&AD and the EC would contribute funds for the execution of some of the projects. He indicated that while CIFOR could not organize a major training programme within the next five years, it would collaborate with IFPRI to run workshops and would work with NARS in such a way as to improve their capability. Impact after five years would be effected in the quality of its partnership with NARS and other collaborators and in the policy debate. He reported that the current list of potential collaborators was based on the strategic capacity of NARS to contribute to CIFOR’s work. While the Board was opposed to CIFOR activity in controversial areas such as timber certification or labelhng, the Centre would research the issues involved in such controversies. 72. Dr. Sayer noted that, as a new institution, CIFOR could recruit fast and then develop policy, or enunciate policies and then recruit appropriate staff to execute them. He stated that communications ability would be an important quality for CIFOR scientists. 73. Dr. Sayer explained that CIFOR managementwould have five Programme Directors reporting straight to the Director General in a three-layered institutional hierarchy. The management of programmes would be closer to the university system whereby programme leaders would enjoy a high degree of control with the benefits of close interaction with one another. The Chief Scientist would not be a line manager. With regard to regional distribution of resources, 40% would be devoted to 74. activities in Asia, 35% in Latin America and 25% in Africa. Most of the African activities might be undertaken by scientists based in Bogor. In terms of disciplinary structure, 40% of the scientists would have qualifications in the social sciences, 40% in the biological sciencesand 20% in the forest sciences. On the matter of allotting 0.22 SSY against a list of 10 collaborators, Dr. Sayer explained that this allocation might just be for training workers associatedwith the collaborative projects. 1.4 75. In rounding up the discussion, the TAC Chair said that the institutional growth rate was not a function of how quickly staff (couldbe recruited and assimilated, but of how to develop a research culture and its ambience. He cautioned that bilateral relationships could lead to a lack of coherence. He noted that to establish research culture and coherence took time and should be based on a sound and realistic philosophy. 76. After further deliberation, TAC offered the following commentary: INTERIM COMMENTARY ON CIFOR’S MTP 77. TAC considers CIFOR’s MTP to be ambitious. It reflects the Centre’s appreciation of the wide range of issuesput)‘orth by Agenda 21 of UNCED. It also reflects the complexity of the causesof deforestation and land degradation. The large list of research topics presented in the MTP needs to be reduced to a manageable list of interrelated problems on which CIFOR will work. 78. TAC is aware of the dtflculty involved in proposing and launching an MTP before a Board-approved strategic plan and key sta# are in place. TAC commendsthe interactive process followed in formulating the MTP and the wide-ranging past consultations and ongoing efforts to continue this process, notably with FAO, the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) and a number of relevant international, regional and national organizations. 79. CIFOR 3 basic proposal would require core resources at a level of US$ 7.6 million, equivalent to the base resource envelope. CIFOR emphasizedthat reductions below the envelope would involve serious compromises in terms of achieving its objectives, since the Centre considers that its programme is already strained at the envelope level of funding. TAC notes CIFOR’s emphasis on policy and socioeconomicsresearch. CIFOR 80. needs to clarify its relationship with IFPRl and the type and extent of independent capacity in policy research which CIFOR would develop within the Plan period. CIFOR also needs to further develop its priority-setting process, particularly in view of the large number of research topics put forth in the MTP. There is also a needfor a more detailed consideration of CIFOR’s procedure for selecting collaborators and developing its role as a catalyst, initiator, supporter or coordinator of the associated research activities. Reproductive biology and genetics (activity 2.5) is an area in which there is 81. potential for substantial contribution to forest science. In this connection, TAC would appreciate clarification on the spectfic issueswhich CIFOR is intending to address in this area and the extent to which CIFOR intends I!Oacquire in-house capability and expertise to tackle those issues, as well as the proportion of work which would be carried out through contracts and collaborators. TAC is concerned about the timing qf the development of the various programmes 82. and the intended rate of expansionfor a Centre lacking in research tradition and currently in the process of developing basic infrasrructure. What alternative scenarios are envisioned, if growth is slower than currently planned? 15 Additional points which need to be further addressed by CIFOR in the near future 83. include: a the nature and intended operation of the implied matrix-management approach of CIFOR; the impact criteria and targets that CIFOR will be adopting in the final version of its MT.P; the specifics of the links to be developed with ICRAF; and the way in which CIFOR intends to reach the donor-suggestedbalance of resource allocation; approximately 30% at headquarters and 70% in the regions. 0 a 0 84. In conclusion, TAC recognizes the d@iculty involved in developing a concrete MTP before a strategic plan and stafl are in place. Consequently, TAC’s commentsare tentative and subject to review and change as CIFOR s programme evolves. TAC will be following CIFOR’s progress closely, with particular respect to the issues raised above. Medium-Term Resource Alloc+tion Process (Agenda Item 5) 85. The Chair introduced the item by reminding TAC members that the Committee was expected to fmalize its recommendationson CGIAR priorities and link these priorities to resource allocation across the CGIAR. Specific recommendations on resource allocation at the centre and System level would be required for the period 1994-98. He noted that after consideration of CIFOR’s draft MTP at this meeting, TAC 86. would have reviewed all 18 centres’ draft MTPs and would then have an interim commentary on each. For the 17 MTPs which were considered earlier, TAC would also have supplementary information from the centres in responseto the TAC interim commentaries and comments from the CGIAR. TAC would proceed by first considering any outstanding substantial issues arising 87. from the centre responsesand CGIAR comments on individual centre MTPs. Special attention would be given to the responsesfrom CIAT, CIP, INIBAP and ICLARM, on which TAC had raised a number of major issues. The next step would be to reconcile the centres’ MTP proposals with TAC’s recommendationson System-level priorities, taking into account developments since MTM’92 when the Group considered the report ‘Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies’. Dr. McCalla stated that TAC would use the financial planning assumption of US$ 270 million (in 1992 dollars) for its basic 1998 recommendationson resource allocation as endorsed by the CGIAR at MTM’92. He noted that the US$ 270 million vector projected no growth, in real terms, in core resources from the 1992 estimated level of US$ 255 million except for the proposed addition of US$ 15 million for forestry and fisheries. TAC would also formulate recommendationsfor the allocation of core 88. resources at the US$ 280 million vector (in 1.992dollars), or about 110% of the sum of the original centre envelopes assignedfor 1998. Finally, it intended to outline a contingency plan for allocating core resources at a funding level of US$ 240 million (in 1992 dollars), or about 90% of the base planning level for 1998. Details of the process and recommendations would be presented at ICW’93 in a paper entitled ‘CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation Process: Analysis and Recommendations’. Supplementary Information from Specific Centres 89. The responsesfrom CIAT, CIP, INIBAP and ICLARM on TAC’s interim commentaries and CGIAR comments were carefully reviewed. TAC noted that CIAT and CIP had provided additional Board-approved proposals at the level of the base resource envelope; INIBAP had submitted a revised MTP proposal following the CGIAR decision at MTM’93 on future priorities and institutional options for banana and plantain research; and ICLARM had also revised its draft MTP document. In light of the supplementary information received from the four centres aud comments made by the CGIAR on the draft MTP proposals, TAC prepared the following commentaries: COMMENTARY ON CIAT’s RESPONSE TAC notes that the supplementaryproposals from CIAT at the llO%, 100% and 90. 90% levels of the base envelope would imply changes in both the Commodity and Resource Management Programmes. At the basefunding level, most of the Forest Margin Programme would be 91. eliminated, with the exception of one position to uphold existing institutional and donor commitments. CIAT does not provide a rationale as to why the Forest Margin Programme was singled out for drastic reduction; however, it would appear that the decision may have been taken on pragmatic grounds. Further, one position in the Hillside Programme would also be eliminated at the basefunding level. At the 90% level, CIAT would cut a number of positions, particularly in the 92. commodity programmes, in such a way that several of the remaining scientific stag would handle more than one commodity in aspects of germplasm enhancement. There would also be reductions in the outreach activities linked to the commodity programmes. TAC considers that the adjustmentsproposed in going from the 110% to the 93. 100% base envelope should take place at the expenseof the scaling down of the commodity programmes, and that the strong reduction in the scale of the resource managementprogrammes should only occur m the 90% funding level. TAC is cognisant of the hard choices that would be imposed on CIAT, in view of the important contribution that it makes in its traditional commodity basket, but attaches high priority to CIAT’s proposals for resource managementwork which focus on high priority ecosystems. The programme adjustmentsproposed for the base level and the 90% level would 94. seem to suggest that critical mass can be maintained at the lower funding levels. However, CIAT’s proposals are ambitious and the successof their implementation will depend upon the efectiveness of a wide set qf collaborative arrangements with NARS 17 NGOs, other IARCs, advanced research institutes and bilateral programmes. The proposed cuts in staff at the base level and the 90% level may be compensatedby strengthening such collaborative arrangements. 95. TAC believes that there is scopefor rationalization of roots and tubers research in the CGIAR System. The external reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA in 1995 should provide an appropriate opportunity to address this issue. COMMENTARY ON UP’s RESPONSE 96. CIP’s supplementaryproposals at the level of the base envelope would essentially include the two commoditiesprogrammes, and a very reduced Andean Ecoregional Programme compared with the original drafr MTP. The core programme of CIP would consist of research on potato and sweetpotato, while the Andean activities would continue with two SSYto handle Andean minor root and tuber crops, germplasm and networking coordination. The rest of the Andean activities would be implemented as part of the complementary programme. The distribution of the relative level of efhort between potato and sweet potato is in accordance with CIP’s strategic plan, and would not change significantly at lower levels of funding. The number of senior sta# at 100 and 110% of the base envelope of US$l4.3 million would be 60 and 55 respectively. 97. CIP considers that at the basefunding level, it would be operating well below the critical mass required for a centre with its mandate to operate eflectively, but TAC notes that CIP has not provided the criteria by which it has defined critical mass. 98. UP’s proposed Andean Ecoregional Programme has grown out of a research network for germplasm activities of lesser known roots and tubers of the high Andean areas, to which a resource managementcomponentfor the whole of the cool Andean region has been added. TAC considers that the aspects related to roots and tubers are important and these should be retained in the core programme. However, the resource management aspects should, at this initial stage, be developed as part of the Centre’s complementary activities. The adjustments at the level of 90% of the base envelope are in line with UP’s 99. identified priorities. However, TAC is concerned about the proposed reduction in biotechnology activities. In line with the recommendationsof the 1989 External Review, CIP is encouraged to promote further consolidation of its activities. This should allow the Centre to maintain its commitment to the application of biotechnology. TAC believes that there is scopefor rationalization of roots and tubers research 100. in the CGIAR System. The external reviews of CIP, CIAT and IIT.A in 1995 should provide an appropriate opportunity to address this issue. 18 COMMENTARY ON INlBAP’s REVISED MTP 101. TAC recalls that its interim commentary on IM’BAP’s draft MTP proposals was very tentative, pending CGIAR consideration of the Task Force report on Banana and Plantain Research. In the light of the CGIAR decision at MlM’93 to place highest priority on Muss germplasm improvement and related activities followed by information, communications and training, TAC has reviewed its commentary on IhYBAP and the Institute’s subsequent response. 102. As agreed at iVTM’93, gennplasm improvement activities will be conducted through a consortium, facilitated by INIBAP under the governance and administrative structure of IPGRI. The CGIAR has also endorsed the continuation of the banana and plantain improvement work at IITA, and has decided to maintain the current level of CGUR core resourcesfor banana and plantain research. 103. The priority areas endorsed by the CGIAR are similar to what was envisaged by INIBAP during the MTP period under two of its three proposed programmes: Muss Germplasm Conservation, Management and Improvement; and Information and Communications. However, the institutional mechanism and the status of INIBAP are expected to change. In light of the impending changes in instirutional, governance ana’ administrative structure, TAC has opted to deal only with the programmatic and financial aspects of the international banana and plantain improvement consortium. The financial aspects will be elaborated in the TAC recommendationson CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation. 104. TAC welcomes the proposed focus on Muss Germplasm Conservation, Management and Improvement geared towards breeding for disease resistance; as well as the importance of information, communications and training activities. These are in full agreement with TAC’s earlier recommendations. It stressesthe importance of having a reliable germplasm conservation and exchange system, including a scientifically reliable transit centre, to ensure safe exchange of germplasm and the needfor a network of base collections for banana and plantain cultivars including their wild relatives. TAC has serious concerns about the scientific viability of the programmes 105. proposed by INIBAP in its revised MTP proposals. IMBAP foresees no support within the base resource envelope, or at the 110% scenario, for additional collaborative projects which may be proposed by the consortium members involved in the global Muss germplasm improvement activities. TAC considers that the programmatic and legal details should be worked out in close consultation with IPGRI and the research institutions participating in the consortium. COMMENTARY ON ICLARM’s REVISED MTP TAC considers that ICLARM’s revised MTP, at the level of the resource 106. envelope, reflects the minimum efso require,d to efsectivelyaddress international fisheries research needs, as reflected in ICLARM’s strategic plan. As already indicated in TAC’s commentary on ICLARM’s external review, the major challenge to ICLARM will be to transform itself from a project- to a programme-driven organization with institutional 19 cohesion, and that ICLARM’s successas a CGIAR institute would be dependent upon the implementation of a range of programme and managementrecommendations made by the external review panel, 107. The major change, compared to the primary MTP proposal, is the restructuring of ICLARiWs work into only two major programmes. The Inland Aquatic Resource SystemsProgramme would be retained while the Coastal and Coral Reef Systems Programmes would be combined into one. The National Research Supporr Programme would be reduced to a training unit. The proposed activities capture the main features of the original MTP, but on a greatly reduced scale and by shifting a number of core elements into the complementaryprogramme. 108. TAC endorses the Inland Aquatic Resource SystemsProgramme as proposed. It is a programme of high priority to the CGIAR as indicated by the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies. The balance betweenproduction systemsand resource management research is about equal. While ICLARM’s strategic plan had given relatively greater emphasis to resource managementresearch, the managementof ICZARM considers that because of impact considerations, production systemsresearch should be given equal weight. TAC agrees with this reasoning but would encourage KL4R.M to systematically monitor its progress in obtaining impact. 109. TAC understands the need to combine coastal$sheries and coral reef research within a single administrative programme structure, despite their different foci. The coastal fisheries programme has been assigned the bare minimum of resources required to achieve progress, but TAC considers the proposal appropriate for the early stages of the research and the development of a _Esller programme strategy. As the programme develops, more resources could be assigned to it becauseof the importance of the problems of coastal Jisheries. 110. TAC notes that research consortia may provide an appropriate mechanismfor drawing on a wider range of expertise in the further developmentof ICLARh4’s coastal fisheries and coral reef programme. TAC considers that the proposed coral reef research programme may be too 111. broad, but more importantly, that there is not convincing proof yet that the productivity of coral reef fisheries can be increased significantly by stock enhancementprocedures. It urges ICXARM to first undertake research on this key question. 112. While TAC understands the rationale for the proposed downscaling of the National Research Support Programme, it expressesthe hope that this should not occur at the expenseof reducing the importance of its information activities. ICLARM has made major contributions to the dissemination of fisheries research information and TAC stressesthat this momentum should not be lost. TAC is concerned about the current state offrux at ICLAIM. The Committee 113. would like to be kept informed about progress made by the Centre in overcoming the management crisis and the implementation of the research programme. 20 Overall Assessment of MTP Proposals overview of MTP Pronosals 114. TAC noted that, in the aggregate, centres’ MTP proposals called for core funding which exceeded the planning estimate of USS 270 million for core funding by some 20 % . Centres’ complementary funding projections also called for considerable increases. Most of the centres had presented a primary MTP proposal at a level equivalent to (or in excess of) 110% of their recommended base resource envelope. 115. From the review of centres’ proposals, TAC made the following general observations: 0 There was a wide variation in the methodology, transparency and subjectivity of priority-setting analysis by the centres. The approach to internal priority setting ranged from being highly quantitative to highly qualitative. There was also a wide variation in the concisenessof documentation; Centres were responding to the call :for greater collaboration with other CGIAR centres as well as with national programmes, but caution had to be expressed against proliferation of bilateral collaborative efforts outside a comprehensive framework; Although all centres provided information - in many casesas addenda to their MTP documents - on the programmatic implications of core funding at lower levels, only six centres presented the:ir primary MTP proposals at the base envelope resource level; During the last three years, the System has gone through a process of rapid downscaling; this is reflected in the :fact that several centres are currently operating at levels substantially below 1990-91 funding; l 0 0 116. The Chair then outlined the steps the:Committee would take in making recommendations on resource allocation. First, TAC would evahrate 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 would take 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 jiustified. This comprehensive review, comprising all centres, would complete TAC’s discussion of CGIAR priorities. Second, TAC would evaluate the MTP proposal of each centre in accordancewith a set of five equally-weighted criteria: the strategic character of the centre’s proposed research programme; the programme’s potential for breakthroughs; centre?spast performance and likelihood of sustained success;the centre’s external environment, institutional health and quality of management; and, finally, the centre’s collaboration with NAPS, other IARCs and advanced institutions. Third, TAC would reconcile the outcome of these two evaluations, the first, largely priority- and demand-driven and the second, largely 21 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 would also consider the implications of the proposed allocations for the implementation of the overall System priorities, at two aggregate levels of assumedcore resources in 1998, i.e., US$ 270 million and US$ 280 million expressedin 1992 dollars. In response to a request expressedat the TACKGIAR May 1993 Workshop, TAC would also have to consider the scenario of a significant, sustained shortfall in core funding in 1998, e.g., at 10% below the base level of US$ 270 million. CGIAR Prioritv Considerations 117. TAC started by considering centres’ responsesto issues raised in the interim commentaries and by the CGIAR. Each centre was discussedin depth for a half-hour period. The Committee then assessed whether developments within and outside the CGIAR System since MTM’92 necessitatedadjustments of the Committee’s views on the centres’ indicative resource envelopes. These developments are detailed in ‘CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation 1994-98’ (Document No. AGR/TAC:IAIU93/11, Section 2.6.2). 118. Following a collective discussion of the priority issues, each TAC member was asked to indicate by ballot whether centres~resource envelopes should qualify, on priority considerations alone, for an upward or downward adjustment of, or for the maintenance at, the indicative base resource envelope assignedin March 1992. This evaluation was based only on priority considerations. TAC members therefore omitted institutional considerations at this stage. The objective was to complete TAC’s discussion on CGIAR priorities and on how these were to be translated into centre resource envelopes. The outcome of this discussion was that five centres tentatively qualified for an upward adjustment of their base resource envelope, ten centres for maintenance and three centres for a downward adjustment of their envelopes as an expression of TAC’s modified priorities. Institutional Considerations After TAC members had reached consensuson the priority considerations, they 119. evaluated each centre. They examined each centre’s MTP proposals with respect to their quality, adequacy of responseto TAC’s interim commentary and CGIAR comments, recent performance, outstanding programme or managementissues, financial performance and condition, etc. Subsequently, each TAC member was asked to evaluate individual centres according to a common set of largely supply-oriented criteria which would be equally weighted: 0 the strategic character of the centre’s research programme, i.e., whether the centre had developed a coherent, forward-looking programme to address critical future strategic issues; the potential for breakthroughs, i.e., an assessment of the chancesthat research would be successful and that the results would be converted to usable technology which would be widely adopted; 0 2.2 0 past performance and likelihood of continuance (or improvement), i.e., whether the centre had delivered results and products in the past and whether there were firm indications that it could do so in the future; the external environment, institutional health and quality of management, i.e., whether the location of the centre and its relationships with host country/countries suggesteda conducive environment for successful research; and whether the institution was appropriately endowed with human and physical resources and had a managementteam that would lead it towards achieving important results; collaboration with NARS, other CGIAR centres and advanced institutions, i.e., whether the centre was an active partner with NARS and had an appropriate set of links with other institutions to maximize the effectiveness of its resources. 0 0 120. The criteria were discussedand agreed upon, and then each TAC member was asked to assign a score of between 0 and 20 for each criterion and each centre. The total score for each centre per TAC member could not exceed 100 points. The results of this second ballot were collated and shared among all TAC members. Each TAC member was asked to explain the reasoning for his/her ranking. Information on centres’ total and average scores, their comparison with System averages, centres’ mean (excluding the highest and the lowest score), standard deviation and median, all led to a relative ranking of centres which reflected TAC members’ evaluations on the basis of the criteria described above. This second input provided TAC with a basis to progress in the resource allocation process by reconciling the outcome of the priority considerations with institutional considerations. A relatively high degree of convergence between the two evaluations generally emerged. In some cases,there was a divergence indicating that TAC members considered that the subject-matter areas were of high priority, but that there were concerns about the centres’ present capacity to deliver an effective research outcome. Svstemwide Considerations TAC recognized the limitations of MTP proposals which were, by nature, centre 121. specific. The proposals did not and could not deal comprehensively with matters of interest to more than one centre. Centres tended to ignore matters which transcend their own interests but were of interest to the System as a whole. TAC therefore decided to foster the concept of Systemwide programme initiatives. In so doing, TAC referred to recent CGIAR decisions on global issues such as livestock and plant genetic resources, and to other CGIAR undertakings such as ecoregional research. 23 System Level Recommendations Recommendations for 1998 Funding; at a US$ 270 million System Vector The Committee agreed at TAC 57 to use US$270 million in 1992 values as a base planning figure for 1998. This figure was comprised of US$ 255 million, the estimated core funding for 1998 (in 1992 dollars) and an additional US$ 15 million for expansion of activities in the forestry and fisheries sectors. A further US!§ 15 million was set aside in reserve to be allocated by TAC either when it formulated its final recommendations or during the period of implementation of the MTPs. Centre Level Considerations 122. Based on the outcome of the priority-based and institutional evaluations discussed above, TAC fast considered which of the centres should have their base resource envelope for 1998 decreasedand by how much. The reductions were added to the US$ 15 million reserve. TAC members discussedin depth the outcome of the two evaluations and their implications on System priorities and centres’ operations. Eventually, TAC identified three centres whose indicative resource envelopes for 1998 should be reduced by a total of US$4.8 million. The rationale is provided in Annex 4. In summary, TAC proposed to reduce: 0 INIBAP’s base resource envelope for 1998 from US$2.1 million to US$ 1.8 million, mainly due to expected savings in Board and other administrative functions which will result from the implementation of the CGIAR decision (at MTM’93) to have INIBAP operate under the umbrella of IBPGIUIPGRI; ILCA’s supplementedenvelope from US$ 17 million to US$ 14 million (as originally assigned) becausethe Committee considered that research on feed resources and their utilization could be more appropriately and more efficiently planned within the framework of the new, integrated entity for global livestock research (decided upon by the CGIAR at MTM’93) and relevant ecoregional mechanisms; and, ICIWF’s base resource envelope for 1998 from US$ 15.6 million to US$ 14 million mainly becauseTAC considered that ICRAF’s original envelope had been set too high relative to that of other centres. In addition, TAC felt that there was a need to temper ICFLW’s projected growth so as to safeguard the quality of its nascent research programmes as well as the integrity of the institution, in line with the recommendationsof ICRAF’S external review. 0 0 TAC also considered which centres should have their base resource envelope for 123. 1998 increased, for what purpose and by how much. Following an in-depth discussion among TAC members of the relative merits of centres, their proposals, their past and potential achievements, etc, , TAC decided to recommend increasesfor five centres: IRRI, CIMMYT, IBPGR, IFPRI and IITA. For IRRI, TAC augmented the base resource envelope for 1998 by 14%. For CIMMYT, IBPGR and IFPRI, TAC decided to recommend increases in their base resource envelopesfor 1998 of 10%. TAC also 2!4 decided to recommend a 5 % increase in the base resource envelope for IITA. The rationale underpinning the proposed upward ;adjustmentsis presented in Annex 4. In summary, TAC proposed to increase: l IRRI’s resource envelope for 1998 from US$ 25.8 million to US$ 29.4 million (in 1992 values) mainly to include the five mega projects it had proposed in its 1998 core programme, i.e., raising the irrigated rice yield ceiling; reversing the decline in productivity trends in intensive irrigated rice; improving rice-wheat systems; conserving rice genetic resources; and exploiting biodiversity for sustainable pest management; CIMMYT’s resource envelope for 11998 from US$ 24.1 million to US$ 26.5 million (in 1992 values), mainly to strengthen CIMMYT’s work in maize and wheat genetic enhancementand molecular biology applications; IElPGR’s resource envelope for 199Er from US$ 8.4 million to US$ 9.2 million (in 1992 values) to enable IBPGR to include the Coconut Genetic Resources Network in its core programme, and to strengthen the implementation of a Systemwide programme on plant genetic resources; IPPRI’s resource envelope for 1998 from US$ 8.6 million to US$ 9.5 million (in 1992 values) to enable IPPRI to give greater attention to research on natural resources management and to macroeconomic studies on sustainability; and IITA’s resource envelope for 1998 from US$ 22.2 million to US$ 23.3 million (in 1992 values) to allow IITA to integrate the operation of its biological control programme into its core activities. 0 0 0 0 124. The increases in the base resource envelopes amounted to US$ 8.8 million. Total net allocations to centres following the.setwo steps totalled US$ 257.8 million (in 1992 values). In addition to a provision of IJS$ 1.2 million for external reviews, TAC decided to set aside a reserve of US$ 1 million for research on fisheries to reaffirm its . views on the priority of this sector. However, TAC considered that the principal CGIAR centre involved (ICLARM) needed to strengthen its research programmes and its capacity to deliver these effectively, and to improve its institutional health. If those conditions were fulfilled during the MTP implementation period, as to be testified by the interim external review during 1995, the funds held ji reserve would be released to the Centre. Thus the total recommended core funding for 1998 (in 1992 values) resulting from this centre-focused process amounted to US$260 million, and the proposed distribution is as follows: 25 Centre CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP IBPGR ICARDA ICLARM ICRAF ICRISAT 1FPR.I IIMI IITA ILCA ILRAD 1mAP ISNAR WARDA CENTRES’ TOTAL Provision for External Reviews Reserve for Fisheries TOTAL Programme Funding: at the Svstem Level 125. TAC observed that several centre MTPs contained proposals which could contribute to inter-centre collaboration. Some of these were in an early stage of implementation while others were essentially being proposed in the MTPs. TAC also noted inconsistencies in the centres’ perception of the relative priority of inter-centre undertakings as a part of their overall activities. The multi-centre ecoregional programme components and the CGIAR genetic resources effort - both dispersed over a large number of centres - were considered to be good examples of such situations. Further, TAC noted that, in some cases, centre MTP proposals did not lead to 126. the adequatetreatment of a subject matter particularly important from a Systemwide perspective and deserving a higher priority than the centres concerned were assigning within their overall programmes. This was the case with water management, in aspects beyond irrigation and irrigation management, such as irrigated crop research, human health, watershed management and downstream environmental concerns. TAC also Amount in 1992 US$ million’ 27.5 7.6 26.5 14.3 9.2 17.6 4.8 14.0 26.9 9.5 7.6 23.3 14.0 11.1 1.8 29.4 6.8 5.8 257.8 1.2 1.0 260.0 1 Totals may not add becauseof rounding. :26 recognized the decision taken by the CGIAR at MTM’93 to establish a single entity for global livestock research, into which relevant components of ILCA and ILRAD would be integrated and which would focus on a livestock research programme of global relevance in t&e CGIAR. 127. Consequently, TAC decided to recommend, to the CGIAR, allocations of core funds to a number of undertakings of particular importance to the System as a whole. TAC proposed that these initiatives be implemented gradually during the MTP period, by the end of which their aggregate core funding would total US$ 10 million (in 1992 values). TAC has identified a convening centre for each Systemwide initiative as well as likely partners from within the CGIAR. The Committee envisaged that the convening centre would act as initiator and facilitator for the initiative. TAC would be prepared to receive joint proposals submitted through the:convening centre from the partners involved. Four Systemwide initiatives have ‘beenproposed by TAC for the forthcoming medium-term period. These are outlined in the report on CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation 1994-98 (Section 3.1.2). They comprise a number of ecoregional programmes, conservation of genetic resources, a livestock programme and a water management programme. In all cases, the research would be conducted collaboratively with interested CGIAR centres, NARS and relevant non-CGIAR institutions. TAC’s recommended core funding’ ad centre-specific requirements amounted to 128. US$ 260 million at the US$270 million vector. The inter-centre and CGIAR Systemwide initiatives would total US$ 10 million by 1998, in 1992 values. 129. The following table summa&es these recommendations: Recommended Co:re Funding in 1998 (ii 1992 US$ million) At US$270 m. Vector A. Centres Recommended Centres Core Funding Provision for External Reviews . Reserve for Fisheries Sub-roral Centres B. CGIAR Svstemwide Initiatives Ecoregional Progranunes Genetic Resources Programme Livestock Programme Water Management Programme Sub-total SysremwideInitiatives Total Recommended Core Fundling 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 10.0 US!§ 270.0 257.8 1.2 1.0 260.0 27 130. These recommendations, expressedin both 1992 and 1998 values (US!§ 270 million and US$ 361 million respectively), by centre and by CGIAR Systemwide initiative are presented in Table 1. Section A of the table presents each centre’s recommended funding in conjunction with its 1992 estimated funding, the amount of complementary funding projected for 1998 in both 1992 and nominal dollars, and the resulting total centres’ 1998 funding requirements in both 1992 and current dollars. Section B of the table presents TAC’s recommendationsfor CGIAR Systemwide initiatives totalling US$ 10 million in 1992 values, or US$ 12.7 million in current 1998 values. Reconciliation of TAC’s Recommendationson 1998 Resource Allocation with CGIAR Priorities and Strategies 131. Recalling that the objective of its recommendationson the allocation of core resources among centres and CGIAR Systemwide initiatives was to ensure that the System priorities would be implemented effectively, TAC decided to examine whether the priorities endorsed by the CGIAR had been changed or affected during the MTP process. It concluded that there was a reasonabledegree of congruence between TAC’s original recommendations on relative priorities and directional changes, and the relative priorities and directional changeswhich resulted from TAC’s final recommendations on 1998 core resource allocations among centres and CGIAR Systemwide initiatives (Table 2). Recommendations for 1998 Core Funding at a US$280 million System Vector 132. In order to give the CGIAR insight into what it would forego if core funding were limited in 1998 to US$270 million, TAC examined how an additional US$ 10 million could be effectively allocated; this would bring total core funding to US$ 280 million by 1998 or 10% above the total of centres’ resource envelopes assigned in March 1992 (US$255 million). Details of the process followed are outlined in Document No. AGR/TAC:IA.W93/11. TAC reached consensuson incremental allocations to specific centres, and then to CGIAR Systemwide initiatives at the US$ 280 million vector. Table 3 indicates the allocation by centre and by CGIAR Systemwide initiative, and includes centres’ projections of 1998 complementary funding requirements as well as the resulting total 1998 funding requirements. Coning with a Sustained Shortfall of Core Funds in 1998 TAC considered mechanismsfor dealing with a potential shortfall of funds in 133. 1998. It looked at how the System could cope with a possible significant sustained underfunding of as much as lo%, or 30 million, below the 1998 base funding target of US$ 270 million and concluded that alternatives to simple across-the-boardbudgetary cuts should be explored. Each TAC member identified elements (programmes, activities, centres, regions, production sectors and commodities) which could or should be curtailed or elimiited at reduced funding levels. In the ensuing discussion, the Committee concluded that a sustainedfunding 134. shortfall of 10% or more should not be accommodatedby marginal budgetary adjustments 28 across all centres’ programmes, although it noted that current (1993) nominal funding levels were already in this range and that some centres were coping with the shortfalls in mostly ad hoc and expedient ways. In TAC:‘s view, significant and sustained funding shortfalls if handled through ad hoc short-term adjustmentswould be disruptive to centres’ research work and would clearly not be a sustainablesolution to long-term budgetary shortfalls. 135. TAC members recalled that, on two recent occasions (Chapter 11 of the 1990 Expansion Report, and the first draft of Chapter 13 of the 1992 Priorities and Strategies paper), it had presented the CGIAR with a comprehensive set of structural options which could have led to savings in governance and managementcosts. While on each occasion, the Group had difficulty dealing with the possibility of a comprehensive restructuring of the CGIAR, TAC observed that the CGIAR did make major structural decisions regarding livestock research and banana and plantain research at MTM’93. In each case, the decision was preceded by a comprehensive priorities and strategy analysis by TAC and an institutional options analysis by a donor work&g group. TAC therefore concluded that a reasoned, sequential approach was more likely to be appealing to the Group than an across-the-board consideration of structural options despite the obvious merits of a comprehensive review. It has proposed a series of across-centre/Systemstripe reviews on significant components of CGIAR activities as an input to a possible restructuring of institutions. Transition from 1993 and Progression from 1.994towards 1998 136. In the process of formulating core funding recommendationsfor 1994 through 1997, TAC perceived the need to be consistent with its recommendationsfor 1998 and to relate its short-term recommendations to current core funding trends in the CGIAR. It had to make assumptions with regard to both the likely level of core funding for the System in the first year, and the pace of implementation of centres’ prograrmnes and budgets between the present and 1998. Several possibilities were considered in formulating the assumptions. 137. At the System level, among at least two possible approaches’, TAC chose the option which, from a supply perspective, implied that the current estimate of core funds available to centres in 1993 (US$231 million, or US$ 221 million in 1992 values) would constitute the benchmark to determine an average, annual rate of real growth necessary to reach the 1998 recommended level of core funding. This would produce, in the aggregate, an annual, average real rate of increase for centres’ requirements of 3.1% from US$221 million in 1993 to US$258 million in 1998 both expressedin 1992 dollars. 1 The other option - from a demand perspective - would imply that the required core funding in 1994 be derived from the difference between the funding estimated for 1992 (when 1998 indicative envelopeswere set) and the sum of those envelopesfor 1998; i.e., by relating the then-estimated 1992 funding of US$ 255 million to the 1998 recommended level of US$270 million (in constant 1992 terms). 29 138. At the centre level, TAC also selected from among two possible approaches to set yearly core funding levels for each centre’. The option chosen by TAC was to use for each centre, the average, annual rate of growth between the centre 1993 estimated core funding and its recommended 1998 funding level. When applied consistently to all centres, this approach implies that all centres will progress in a linear mode from their respective 1993 funding levels towards their 1998 target funding level. The major reasons for TAC to select this option over the alternative, was that the alternative would have imposed a distribution of resources among centres in the very early years of the MTP period. This distribution, however, is actually intended to be achieved through gradual implementation of programme changesover the five-year period. The option selected by TAC, i.e., the linear progression from 1993 towards 1998, is not flawless in that a centre’s future resource allotment, resulting from the linear progression, is highly contingent on that centre’s funding in the year of reference, i.e., 1993, which is not (or not necessarily) related to programme or priority considerations. TAC’s Recommendations of 1994 Core Funding and Allocations 139. The application of the average rate of growth of 3.1% to 1993 System core funding produces a core funding level of US$228 million in 1994 (in 1992 dollars). Augmenting this amount by an annual rate of 4% for cost adjustmentstranslates it into US$246 million in 1994 dollars. Including a provision for external reviews, the nominal core funding requirement for the centres’ aggregatewill thus amount to US$248 million in 1994 dollars. The latter compares with US$230.7 million in 1993 and calls for a nominal increase of US$ 16.8 million, or 7.3%. 140. Because of the newness and thus experimental character of the Systemwide initiatives, TAC considered that the centres should be given time to develop specific proposals. The Committee decided that it would not recommend initiation of any of the proposed CGIAR Systemwide initiatives during 1994. 141. The outcome of TAC’s recommendationsof 1994 core funding is presented in the table below, by centre and for the System as a whole. 1 The alternative option consists in using the relative distribution between centres of the 1998 core funding of US$ 258 million (i.e., exclusive of the allocations to CGIAR System initiatives) and applying the distribution to the 1994 System funding in 1994 projected as described above, i.e., using the System’s average growth rate of 3.1%. :30 Recommended 1994 Core Funding Centre US$ million CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP IBPGR ICARDA ICLARM ICRAF ICRISAT IFPRI IIMI IITA ILCA Amount in 1992 US$ million 25.0 5.3 23.3 14.3 8.6 13.8 4.4 ll.9 25.4 8.1 6.3 20.8 K!. 1 9.9 l.7 25.5 6.1 5.1 227.7 I..2 US$ 228.9 Amount in 1994 27.0 5.8 25.2 15.5 9.3 14.9 4.7 12.9 27.4 8.8 6.8 22.5 13.1 10.7 1.9 27.6 6.6 5.5 246.3 1.2 US$247.5 ISNAR WARDA Centres’ Total External Reviews SYSTEM TOTAL TAC’s Recommendations of 1995 Through 1.997Core Funding and Allocations Consistent with the procedure followed for determining core resources for the 142. System as a whole and for individual centres’,the core resource allocations for each of the three intermediary years were projected in two steps. The first step consisted in applying to each centre, the linear, average rate of growth between 1993 and 1998 - i.e., 3.1% per year for the System as a whole - to each of 1994, 1995, and 1996 to assessthe following year’s funding requirements. In a second step, the 1998 allocation to CGIAR Systemwide initiatives was built up gradually over the four-year period (1995-98). The allocation was based on the relative priorities of the proposed global initiatives; the degree to which the proposal represented a new activity or the expansion of a not yet fully developed initiative; and the likely time required by the convening and partner institutions to prepare and submit concrete proposals to TAC for review and approval. Thus, for each of the intermediary years, the projected allocation of resources consists of two components, i.e., a centre-focused resource allocation and a CGIAR Systemwide initiatives’ allocation, the sum of which composes the System total core resource requirements in each of the years. 31 Table 1:~ acommended 1996 Core and Complementary @!l usf uilbrp -- Funding Requirements U IJsf 270 YiYkm YdaJ .. . x.5 3 449 10.4 13.1 34.1 43.1 19.9 3.5 3.0 20 5.5 . _ 6.2 7.1 7.4 7.4 OJ 7.6 , . 91 3.1 3.6 4.5 3.6 25 7.0 10.4 9.0. 9.4 9.4 u 9.9 124 3.9. 4.6 3sl 12 1.0 gJ&! ---I 14.7 a 17.3 21.1 7.6 16.0 XL4 17.7 14.7 cm.7 21.4 m 32s 362 9.9 9.4 202 224 16.6 z 21.9 26.7 9.9 41.0 96.6. 36.6 27.1 1(.6 41.6 4.6.6 125 119 u1.7 1.2 1.3 cL(.a a. . 0.50 0.50 0.25 1s 0.40 0.40 0.70 1.10 0.75 0.50 4.00 1.Q) 4.00 1.m m 0.6 0.6 u 1.6 0.5 0.5 Q&g 1.4 0.9 0.6 5.1 1.3 5.1 1.3 s.u 0.50 0.50 0.25 125 0.40 0.5 0.5 G 1.6 0.5 32 Table 2: Congruenca by Production of Priorities and Resource Allocations sector, and by Commodity by Activity, by Region. 1. cofn.e#w&t 6 MuuQm.nt d Natunl Raourc~ 1.1 Ecosywm s#uwnkn & -gemsnt 12. Gumplum cotl..c-.. chAmcler, du8t 2. Gemplum a Brmding 21 cfqm 22Lhwtock 23 Trsa 2.4 Fnh Enhmcment 1Jx 7% a 2136 m% ox 1% 0% 22% 18% 13% 2% 0% z.+ 21x 9% 6% zx 3. Produekn syrtwn¶ chhprncnt al Muugement 3.1 Cropping Systems 32 btocks~tcnu 3.3 Tree systems 3.4 Aqu8bcspt8ms 4. So&-Eamomic, Pubic Poiii. 6 Pubb lhnagemcnt Raswch 5. IrrrMuoon Buildng 5.1 Tmining & Conlsrw~cn 52 DocumJFwbtiimirubon of Info. 5.3 Orp8nblion 8nd Management Ceunsetling 5.4 Nehv&u llJ; lay 6% za 20% 6% 2% 0% ?2E 14% 11% 3% 1% lx% ?z 16y 7% 21x 19% 0% 1% 0% 25y 13% 9?4 2% 0% ((x 6% m 8% =I a% 2% 2% 15% 10% lQ% 4% 3% 42% 5% 4% 1% 10% 5% TX 2% 3% 2% 1% 18% 14% 9% 9% 3% 3% 39% 5% 4% 1% s% 4% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 15% 2% 16% 8% 9% 3% 3% 39% 7% 6y 3% 15% 4% 1% 2% zx 3% 1% 14% 2% 71% m% 1% s!z 8% SK 3% 15% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 14% z!i 74% 18% 1% 70% 24% 1% 66% 23% zx a?2 Table 3 Rscomtknded 1998 Core and Complementary ci usz upliorrs -- Funding Requirements .t ust 2so ht9ri VW Ba¶e RUO~ A CENrRES CUT assigned in March Envelope 1992 tin 1992 $1 27.5 19-9s AECOI zisq 263 35.8 ENDED FUNDING RE -1 8.0 10.1 3.sm 9.6 7.1 7.0 Q 8.0 4.5 3.6 2.5 7.0 11.7 9.0 9.4 9.4 ClFOR ClUhnT CIP IPGRl BP01 INIBA Sub-t& ICAROA ICLARM ICRAf ICRISAT IFPW IlMl IKA Livutook Contra ILC/ ILmt Sub-toh 14.0 u 23.1 25.6 6.8 5.6 w 12 201) _ 10.5 17.6 4.6 15.6 26.9 6.6 7.6 222 24.1 14.3 7.6 26.5 14.3 10.7 1-B 12.5 17.6 4.6 14.0 27.9 9.5 7.6 23.3 14.0 9.6 33.5 111.1 13.s M 15.9 22.3, 6.1 17.7 35.3. 12.0. 9.6 2Q.sm 17.7 26 7.6 5.6 5.5 0.s 6.3 3.5 3.0 2.0 55 92 7.1 7.4 7.4 ZzJ 12 10 331.6 ss 12 1.3 12 1.3 CENI’RES TOTAL . B. CGtAR SYSTEMWIDE PROGRAhthtES 270.0 155.p Sub-.Shamn Ahioc Subhum. & Humid Ecocsgion. Pragtatrk Semi-Arid Ecowgiorul Rogmmma tfighkd.¶ Eaxagiod Pmgramms sub-toal WANA Ate Semi-Arid Ecomgional F’rogcunnw S&hum. &Humid Ecorogh. Programma Sub-t-1 LK: OS ; 27 0.7 0.7 jJ 1.6 12 OS 2 2.7 Cmc--ngion Shah C Bum Pmgnmma I 13 TOTAL CGUR -DE PROGRAUYES I :34 Implications of TAC’s Recommendations on Priorities for Future CGIAR Strategies and Structure (Agenda Item 6) 143. The item was introduced by the Chair, who recalled that Chapter 13 of TAC’s 1992 paper ‘Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies’ had been presented to the CGIAR at MTM’92 as a working draft. The CGIAR had endorsed the broad directions of the strategies and structural options proposed by TAC, pending a coherent proposal on how to implement the ecoregional concept and further consideration of the future structure of the CGIAR. A final version of Chapter I3 will be presented at ICW’93. 144. Subsequentto MTM’92, a joint TAUCentre Directors’ Working Group had been set up to consider mechanisms for implementing the ecoregional approach to research in the CGIAR. The Working Group produced a report which was discussedby TAC at its 60th meeting and by the Centre Directors. Both TAC and the Centre Directors produced a commentary on the report. 145. The report and the commentaries were subsequentlydiscussedby heads of national agricultural research systems in sub-SaharanAfrica at a meeting organized by the Special Programme for African Agricultural Research (SPEAR) at the African Development Bank in Abidjan on 29-30 April 1993, and at a special workshop organized immediately after the MTM’93 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Summaries of the outcome of both the San Juan and Abidjan meetings were distributed to TAC members. The Chair noted that information on how the centres intended to implement the ecoregional approach to research was now available in the centres’ medium-term proposals. 146. With respect to developing the structural options for the System, the Chair recalled the recent progress made by TAC in discussing priorities and strategies for research on livestock, rice, banana and plantain, coconut, fisheries and forestry. The Chair therefore considered that the decisions taken on these matters, the centres’ MTP proposals and the San Juan and Abidjan meetings, created a solid basis for finalizing Chapter 13 in time for ICW’93. 147. In the ensuing discussion, TAC members sought clarification on some elements of the Joint TACKentre Directors’ Working Group report, particularly with respect to: the holistic nature of the ecoregional approach; the need for guidance from TAC on how the ecoregional approach could be implemented in an orderly way; the role of NARS and other collaborators in partnerships; models of collaboration; the concept of a convening centre; the problem of overlapping mandates; and the extent to which centres’ MTP proposals conformed to the approach. TAC members expresseda strong wish that, in the medium-term resource allocation process, funds would be set aside to support particular ecoregional initiatives which would encourage inter-centre collaboration and partnerships with NARS. There was general consensuson the need for action and for demonstrating progress in the implementation of the ecoregional approach; and also on the need to be selective and experimental rather than implementing all the centre proposals at once. 35 148. The Chair recalled that, in its commentary on the ecoregional approach, TAC had suggestedfour options for implementing the ecoregional approach in the System. Most members of the CGIAR had appeared to favour the third option, a programmefunding model, which would ultimately lead to option four, a Systemwide model. Under the programme-funding model, a limited number of ecoregional initiatives, recommended by TAC, would be funded on a programme basis by the CGIAR. The selected initiatives could become known as ‘CGIAR Ecoregional Programmes’ to distinguish them from other activities that constitute a normal part of centre programmes. 149. After a wide-ranging discussion, TAC concluded that, at this stage in the evolution of the System, support for six ecoregional programmes would be justified: a two in sub-SaharanAfrica in the warm arid and semi-arid tropics, the warm humid and sub-humid tropics, and one in WANA for the winter rainfall sub-tropical areas; two in Asia in the warm semi-arid tropics and sub-tropics, and in the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and sub-humid tropics; one in Latin America in the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and sub-tropics. 0 0 0 In addition, TAC felt that a special case could be made for support for a programme for the cool tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica and for a cross-ecoregional initiative on slash-andbum agriculture. 150. TAC was prepared to receive concrete proposals through the convening centres for implementing the eocregional programmes with specific roles outlined for each contributing partner. The convening role would be essentially a service and initiating role. In all cases, the research would be conducted by relevant CGIAR centres, NARS and other institutions or agencies. 151. TAC’s institutional recommendationsfor each region were as follows: Sub-Saharan Africa 0 In the warm humid and sub-humid tropics, IITA would be the convening centre through its continuum, moist savannaand forest zone programmes in West, central and eastern Africa. IITA would work collaboratively with WARDA within the framework of’ a consortium arrangement for the inland valleys in West Africa, in which WARDA currently plays a lead role. In the semi-arid tropics, ICRISAT would be the convening centre, both through its Sahelian Programme and its programme in Bulawayo in collaboration with the Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR). 0 36 0 ICRAP is currently coordinating an :initiative on integrated natural resources management for the highlands of eas.temand central Africa, in close collaboration with national programmes and several CGIAR centres. TAC noted that while the cool tropics of sub-Mat-an Africa was not considered to be a highpriority ecoregion, this highlands initiative merited support becauseof its innovative approach, which involved centres and NARS from the outset, and because of the weaknessof national research systems in the region. This highlands initiative is currently supported with complementary sources of funding, but would be a candidate for CGIAR System programme support. ICRAF would be the convening centre for an ecoregional programme. WANA 0 The emphasis would be on the sub-tropics with winter rainfall, with ICARDA as the convening centre. It was assumedthat the new programme on water management in the WANA region, for which IIMI has been designated the convening centre, would also be closely involved in this initiative. Lath America 0 The focus would be on the sub-humid and humid tropics and sub-tropics. CIAT would be the convening centre and the programme would include relevant parts of CIP’s Andean Programme. TAC considered whether CIP’s proposed ecoregional programme for the Ande:anregion would merit separate support. The Committee considered that the resource-managementresearch aspectsof the proposed Andean Programme would more appropriately fit in CIP’s complementary programme. TAC recognized the importance of the Andean region and the need for research to overcome the urgent problems of poverty and resource degradation in the area. The Committee supported CIP’s research on genetic resources conservation of lesser-known roots and tubers as a core element under the Andean Programme and hoped that relevant parts of the Andean Programme could be integrated into the proposed ecoregional programme for Latin America. That programme may also incorporate relevant parts of CIAT’s ecosystemsprogrammes on hillsides, forest margins and savannas. Asia 0 In the warm arid and semi-arid tropilcs and sub-tropics, ICRISAT would be the convening centre. Elements of the CIMMYT-IRRI rice-wheat cropping system would also be addressedthrough this: initiative. In the warm sub-humid and humid tropics and sub-tropics, IRRI would be the convening centre, particularly throug;h its Upland farming SystemsConsortium and Upland Rice Research Programme. 0 TAC also considered that there was ).tstification for programme support to the 152. ‘alternatives to slash-and-bum agriculture’ initiative which already exists and in which several centres and national programmes are actively involved. The initiative addressesa 37 major cross-ecoregional issue. It is conducted by ICRAF in close collaboration with IITA, CIAT, CIFOR and IRRI as a cross-ecoregionalproject. ICRAF would be the convening centre. 153. The Committee would be prepared to consider proposals submitted through the convening centres. The proposals should indicate how the ecoregional programmes would be implemented, with specific roles defined for each participating partner. Funding for each initiative would be apportioned within the medium-term resource allocation process. The importance of involving national programmes and other relevant non-CGIAR institutions from the outset in these initiatives was stressed. 154. TAC subsequentlyconsidered the institutional options for research on global commodities, production sectors and subject-matter areas. The Committee considered that there was a need for stripe reviews (to be planned and executed by TAC in four research and research-related areas: cereals; roots and tubers; socioeconomic, public policy and public management (including strengthening of NARS); and conservation of genetic resources. TAC noted that there was a need to elaborate the Committee’s views on how the CGIAR could most effectively strengthen NARS in the revised Chapter 13. TAC also felt that legume research should be integrated with other commodities in an ecoregional framework, and that the review of the ICRAF and CIFOR MTPs had reaffirmed TAC’s views that at the lowest funding scenario, separateinsitutional mechanisms for forestry research in the CGIAR could not be justified. Regarding the problem of overlapping mandates, TAC noted that, while there 155. _ had been little change in the formal mandatesof centres, there was a continuing change in their operational mandates. A proposal to assign responsibilities rather than mandates to centres was briefly discussedand the Committee noted that such a move would increase accountability and allow for easier phasing out of activities. One TAC member noted that the problem of overlapping mandatesand responsibilities was particularly acute in West Africa and he suggestedthat a study should be undertaken on CGIAR delivery mechanisms in West Africa and on the opportunities to make CGIAR operations in the area more cost effective. The Committee agreed with this suggestion and a firm proposal was made (see para. 177 under Future Reviews). TAC also considered that further reviews on the need for structural changesmay also be warranted. The TAC Chair then provided an overview on the changesthat he considered 156. necessary for the revision of Chapter 13. A revised draft of Chapter 13, incorporating the endorsed changes, has been prepared for consideration at TAC 62 and ICW’93. Future Reviews (Agenda Item 7) Dr. Hans Gregersen, Chair of the Standing Committee for External Reviews, 157. reported on: the progress on the external reviews of IIMI, CIP and CIAT; the calendar of future reviews; Chapter 5 of the ICARDA EPMR report on the external review process; and future inter-centre reviews. :38 158. The First External Review of IIMI will be chaired by Dr. Bernard Tinker (UK) and include four persons with the following areas of expertise: irrigation and agricultural institutions/support services; water resources/irrigation structures; natural resources management and agricultural productivity; socioeconomics/policy; and management. The panel will be supported by consultants and staff from the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. Dr. Amir Kassam from the TAC Secretariat will serve as a resource person and the secretary to the panel, and Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz and Ms. Elizabeth Field from the CGIAR Secretariat will also serve as resource persons. A shortlist of potential panel members and consultants is being prepared in consultation with the panel chair and the Centre. 159. The initial phase and field visits will be conducted from 7 to 20 November 1993. After a week at IIMI headquarters, the Panel will visit IIMI field locations in Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, and in Burkina Faso, Niger and Nigeria. The panel chair plus one or two team members are expected to visit IIMI during the period 29 November to 5 December 1993 to participate in the internal programme review and the Board meetings. The main phase of the review will be conducted from 17 February to 8 March 1994. The report of the Panel will be considered by TAC 63 in March 1994, and by the CGIAR at MTM’94. 160. The review will be conducted under the standard terms of reference. A provisional list of supplementary questions relating to IIMI’s activities is being developed. CIP and CIAT 161. The Fourth External Review of CIP was discussedat TAC 59 in October 1992. It was proposed that the review be conducted by a panel of a chair plus three persons, supported by consultants, with expertise in: crop improvement/crop protection (1 person); crop and natural resources management (1); so&economics/policy (1); and management (1). Planning of the review has begun in consultation with the Centre. TAC considered a list of potential panel chairs. 162. The Fourth External Review of CIAT was discussedat TAC 59 in October 1992. It was proposed that the review be conducted by a panel of five persons, including the chair, supported by consultants. The panel should include expertise in: crop improvement/crop protection/crop management (2 persons); natural resources management (l), so&economics/policy (1); and management (1). TAC endorsed the suggestion that the CIP and CIAT review reports could be 163. considered at TAC 66 in March 1995, and by the CGIAR at MTM’95. This would mean that the main phases of the CIP and CIAT reviews would need to be conducted during January/February 1995. TAC considered the idea of conducting the CIP and CIAT reviews with a single 164. panel which would possibly produce two reports. The Committee felt that a single panel would be attractive for several reasons; it would avoid duplication of effort, could tackle the long-term issues of roots and tubers, and would require fewer members on the panel. 39 However, it was noted that a single panel approach would mean a greater time constraint for the potential panel members. The TAC Chair agreed to consult the management of the.centres concerned, donors and the CGIAR Secretariat to ascertain their opinions on the use of a single panel. Calendar of Future Reviews 165. TAC reviewed the calendar of future external reviews for the period up to and including 1998 (Table 4), and noted the following: The next external review of IITA should be held in 1995. The main phase could be conducted in April 1995 so that the review report could be considered at TAC 66 in June 1995 and by the CGIAR at ICW’95; IBPGR, ICRISAT and IFPRI should be reviewed in 1996; The Second External Review of ICLARM is scheduledfor 1997, and a mid-term review in early 1995 as recommendedby the First External Review in January 1991. However, recent events at. ICLARM may justify a mid-term review in 1994; The next reviews of ILCA and ILRAD, scheduledfor 1997, would depend on their integration into the new global livestock entity. A special interim review may be called for in the meantime; The fifth external review of IRRI is scheduledfor 1997, but IRRI might qualify for an interim external review instead; CIFOR is scheduled for review in 1998 but, depending on developments, some form of special interim review may be called for prior to 1998; The next full external review of CIMMYT is scheduledfor 1998, though it could take place earlier, depending on developments. Chapter 5 of the ICARDA External Review Report on the External Review Process The Committee was informed that the Standing Comn&ee plans to discuss the 166. issues raised by the ICARDA panel during its meeting in October 1993. Dr. Jock Anderson, who is based in Washington, will be invited to participate. The outcome of the discussion will be reported to TAC 62. Inter-Centre Reviews The following topics were highlighted as possible candidatesfor inter-centre 167. reviews: plant genetic resources; public policy, public managementand institution building research; roots and tubers research; and cereals. Table 4: CALENDAR OF EXTERNAL REVIEWS’ September 1993 I ER 3 I ER 1 ER4 ER2 I ER 3 I I ER 4 II ER - ExternalReview; IER - Interim ExternalReview. MTR - Mid-Term Review. This term is reserved for a review recommended by a full externalreview to assess progress on the implementation of the review recommendations. ‘Type and timingsof Reviewsbeyond1994not definitive, exceptfor CIAT and CIP. ‘Recenteventsat ICLARM mayjustify a mid-termreview in 1594. ‘Subjectto the decisionand timing relatedto integration of ILCA and ILRAD. A specialreview may be called for prior to 1997. ‘No review is scheduled because INIBAP’s programme and work will be incorporated into IBPGR. ‘Could qualify for an interim externalreview. 6Depending upondevelopments, someform of review may be calledfor prior to 1998. ‘Could be earlierpendingdevelopments. 41 Plant Genetic Resources 168. Following its earlier discussion on IBPGR’s paper ‘The Role of the CGIAR in Plant Genetic Resources: Towards a Systemwide Strategy’ (see Agenda Item 3), the Committee endorsed the following proposal on commissioning a strategic stripe study of the future strategy for plant genetic resources (PGR) in the CGIAR System: Strategic Stripe Study on Plant Genetic Resources 169. The recent joint eflorts by the CGIAR centres in reviewing the role of the CGIAR in PGR and in formulating proposals towards a Systemwidestrategy are encouraging and commendable. However, in considering the draft MTP proposals of CGIAR centres, TAC noted that little progress was visible with regard to the recommendation in the 1991 EPMR of IBPGR concerning the developmentof a CGIAR Systemwidestrategy for PGR and inter-centre collaboration. I 70. The CGIAR Systemis a leading player in international genetic resource conservation and in related research. TAC believes that a Systemwidestrategy and programme on PGR is urgently required in responseto the global concern for the conservation of biodiversity. In order to facilitate an assessmentof CGIAR’s responsibilities, and to define a Systemwidestrategy, the Committeeproposes that a strategic stripe study on PGR be commissionedby TAC. The study should be completed in time for discussion at TAC 62 in October 1993. The terms of reference of the study should be: 1. To assessthe role and responsibilities of the CGIAR in the conservation of PGR and related research, and the ways in which the responsibilities currently are discharged. To recommend ways in which CGIAR strategy and appropriate institutional arrangements in this area could be modified to recognize and enhance the System’sresponsivenessto the global concernfor the conservation of biodiversity. 2. Given the amorphous nature of national programmes ’ work on PGR, TAC 171. suggeststhat the views of the developing countries be soughtfor the study through appropriate mechanisms, including those already set up by FAO. It is proposed that the exact mode of the study be worked out by the TAC Chair, 172. afer consultation with IBPGR, the centre directors and other relevant groups. The TAC Chair noted that, although he could initiate discussions with IBPGR 173. and others on how best to conduct the study, he felt that, given the workload on the Secretariat, it was unlikely that the study could be accomplished in time for consideration at TAC 62. 42 Public Policy, Public Management and Institution Building Research 174. In its 1992 review of CGIAR priorities and strategies, TAC had recommended a substantial increase in the resources allocated1 to category 4 of activities on so&economics, public policy and public managementresearch. In an attempt to gauge the level of category 4 activity across the System for 1994-98, Drs. Gregersen and Gryseels had summarized the relevant proposals in each of the MTPs. 175. Dr. Gregersen informed the Committee that almost every centre had proposed an involvement in so&economics research. Public policy research was very much IFPRI’s speciality, and almost every centre had proposed collaboration with IFPRI, although the nature of the collaboration was not always specified. It appeared that IFPRI was often requested to provide service functions in conducting policy research in the CGIAR. In discussing this issue, the Committee felt that there was a need for an inter-centre study of public policy research in the CGIAR. 176. Public management research is the dlomain of IIMI and ISNAR, but a few other centres are involved also. Research on institution building is a primary function of ISNAR. After further consideration, TAC endorsed a proposal to commission an intercentre study on policy, management and institution building research to be undertaken in 1994. The objective of this stripe review would be to assist TAC and the CGIAR in defining a system strategy in this area of work, and explore alternative structural options. CGIAR Delivery Mechanisms 177. Arising from the TAC discussion on the implications of TAC’s recommendations for CGIAR strategies and structure, was a proposal from the Committee to undertake a study of CGIAR delivery mechanisms. It was pointed out that there was a growing number of CGIAR activities and facilities that existed side-by-side in many regions. From a System perspective, this raises questions regarding the most cost-effective ways of organizing the CGIAR presence in a given region. TAC therefore endorsed the proposal that a study of CGIAR delivery mechanismsbe conducted, starting in 1994 with West Africa where many centres have a physical presence. The study would identify physical locations of facilities, personnel resident in the region, programme expenditure and level of capital investment. If the study is found useful, then it would be extended to other regions during 1995. Roots and Tubers The Committee discussedand endorsed a proposal for TAC to commission an 178. inter-centre study of the CGIAR’s work on vegetatively-propagatedplants in order to review the institutional roles and to recommend options for increasing efficiency. It was suggestedthat cross-centre issuescould be aIddressed during the reviews of CIP, CIAT and IITA (all in 1995) by using a small panel, one member of which could attend the reviews as an observer. The TAC Chair concluded the discussion by suggesting that the Standing 179. Commirtee on External Reviews drafted proposals for inter-centre studies of public policy 43 and public management, and roots and tubers research, to be considered at TAC 62. The Chair also suggestedthat an inter-centre review of cereals could be conducted in 1996, prior to the next review of CGIAR priorities in 1997. Other Business (Agenda Item 8) CIP Budget Request 180. The Committee considered a request from CIP’s Director General that TAC revisit the issue of a one-time compensatory payment of US$ 950,000 for unusual cost increases during the period 1989-91, which the Committee (at TAC 59) had recommended be granted to CIP during 1993. TAC had tied the compensationexplicitly to a partial replenishment of CIP’S working capital during 1993, and the recommendation had been endorsed by the CGIAR at ICW’92. However, in early 1993, the CGIAR Secretariat had to adjust all centres’ funding levels to match a much lower level of core funding for the System than expected, and the first step in this adjustment process was the elimination of all centres’ provisions for cost increases. For this purpose, the TAC-recommended compensation-to CIP had been treated as a cost increase and thus eliminated from CIP’s revised funding requirements. Following protracted discussionswith the CGIAR Secretariat, CIP’s Director General requested TAC to consider the issue. 181. After revisiting the matter, TAC concluded that the causesunderlying its original recommendation were unchanged and the Committee therefore reaffied its recommendation that in 1994, CIP should be assignedUS$950,000 as compensation for the unusual cost increasesduring 1989-91. TAC also reaffied that the funds should be used only to restore working capital and not to finance operational or capital expenditures. Report on the Meeting of the Committee on Sustainable Development 182. Dr. Gerard0 Budowski reported on the inaugural meeting of the Committee on Sustainable Development which took place at the United Nations, New York on 15-25 June 1993. Dr. Budowski stated that the meeting had been organized to address issues arising from Agenda 21 as a follow-up to UNCED. There were over 400 participants, including at least 50 ministers of environment and other important personalities. A major objective of the meeting was to sensitize people and organizations to various aspectsof Agenda 21 and to draw up uniform procedures for reporting on policy, programme and participation by countries and organizations involved in its execution. The highlights of the meeting were: the discussionson maintaining biodiversity 183. and on measuresto stop deforestation; the establishmentof an intergovernmental ‘Committee on Biodiversity’ which will report directly to the General Assembly of the UN; and the news that the US Government had signed the protocol on biodiversity. Much of the meeting was devoted to financial matters. The cost of follow-up for 184. the Agenda 21 programmes was estimated at US$ 140 million a year. The Japanese 44 Government promised to make a substantial contribution, and Dr. Budowski advised that the CGIAR should develop a good strategy to secure benefits from this new money. SPAAR Technical Consultation on an Ecoregional Approach to Agricultural Research 185. The Special Programme for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) Technical Consultation on an Ecoregional Approach to Agricultural Research took place at the African Development Bank Headquarters in .Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire from 29-30 April 1993. TAC was represented by the TAC Chair and Dr. Guido Gryseels from the TAC Secretariat. Dr. Mike Colliion representedthe CGIAR Secretariat. 186. Dr. Gryseels reported that the meeting had been very useful; discussionshad been wide-ranging, and went beyond the ecoregional concept to the wider issue of how to strengthen the partnership between national programmes and the CGIAR. There was a feeling among NARS that, while they were happy to participate in the meeting, they felt that the invitation had come rather late in the development of the concept. Nevertheless, they expressed a desire, and discussedalternative mechanisms, for better interaction among NARS, TAC and the CGIAR. _ 187. Dr. Gryseels subsequentlycirculated1 a summary of some of the conclusions reached and endorsed at the conference which included the following that: 0 new initiatives should focus on production systemsof regional significance which offer opportunities for enhancedproductivity. the ecoregional approach should be ;ameans through which greater responsibilities in research could be devolved to strengthen NARS and transnational institutions over time. equal roles should be shared in priority-setting for, and planning and monitoring of, ecoregional activities through the mobilization of additional resources to ensure full participation by NARS. the consortium mechanism should be designed for easy management and should be free of unnecessaryadministrative burden. the long-term mandates and structures of CGIAR centres within the ecoregional concept should be re-examined; cooperation between centres should be improved and contacts with NARS rationalized to avoid overburdening them. l 0 0 0 CAB1 Review Conference Dr. Amir Kassam of the TAC Secretariat, reported on the Twelfth Review 188. Conference of CAB International (CABI), held in London on 14-18 June 1993. The Conference was well attended by member and non-member countries and international organizations, including five CGIAR centres and the agendaconsisted of reports of CABI’s activities and strategies. 45 189. The Conference adopted a new mission statement: “CAB International is dedicated to improving human welfare worldwide through the dissemination, application and generation of scientific knowledge in support of sustainabledevelopment, with emphasis on agriculture, forestry, human health and the management of natural resources, and with particular attention to the needs of developing countries”. CABI sees itself as an organization dedicated to the conservation of natural resources as well as to agriculture, and proposes to expand its activities in crop protection and integrated pest management, and to strengthen biosystematic capability in developing countries through a system of regional and national biosystematic networks (BIONET). CAB1 was also helping developing countries identify their needs for agricultural information, biosystematics and pest management services through its Partnership Facility and has carried out 15 country assessments since 1991. 190. During the Conference, CAB1 organized an informal meeting with donor and CGIAR centre representativesto explore the possibility of a systemwide approach under which CAB1 could assumea more defined role in relation to the information needs of the centres. There was general consensusthat CAB1 and Centre Directors should hold informal discussionsto consider future strategies for collaboration in the context of a clearer definition of the respective roles of CAB1 and the CGIAR centres. CAB1 also expressed a wish to make a presentation to TAC 63 in Rome in March 1994 to inform TAC of what CAB1 had to offer to the CGIAR System. In concluding the discussion, the TAC Chair agreed that a presentation to TAC 191. by the Director General of CAB1 on the Bureau’s work would be useful. Such a presentation could be made during TAC 63 in Rome. Research on Irrigated Agriculture 192. The Chair informed the Committee of a letter from Ambassador Blake, President of the Committee on Agricultural Sustainability for Developing Countries, a non-governmental organization strongly involved in promoting an interface between technology and agriculture. Ambassador Blake’s letter indicated that one third of the global food harvest came from irrigated agriculture and over half of the world’s output of wheat and rice was accounted for by irrigated production. If future demand for food in developing countries rose as rapidly as currently projected, a good proportion of the increased production would have to come from irrigated agriculture. In spite of the fact that better irrigation managementwas a major component of 193. any effort to protect natural resources and to make agriculture sustainable, a recent visit made by Blake to IIMI revealed that the Centre’s research focused only on the narrow area of irrigation management. Little research was being conducted in irrigation technology. Moreover, IIMI’s programmes were restricted to a very few countries, and the scientists at the Centre pointed out the paucity of data on the amount and condition of land under irrigation. Ambassador Blake suggestedthat the first step in redressing the situation, was to 194. set up an expert group to study developing countries’ irrigation research needs and set forth a timetable for tilling such needs. As part of its responsibility such an expert group should address the following questions: 0 Should IIMI expand its research programmes to offer its services to developing countries which had major areas of irrigated land? How would countries currently showing little interest in accepting help from IIMI enter into meaningful dialogues on irrigation? How could these programmes be kept large enough and kept in-country long enough to have a sustainable infhience? Should IIMI and IPTRID be united? If so, where, when, at what cost, and with what mandate? How could a united, proactive agenda on irrigation research be presented to developing countries? Should IFPRI’s irrigation policy research be expanded, how, and at what cost? l 0 0 0 a 195. In the ensuing discussion of Ambassador Blake’s letter, TAC members considered that many of the issuesraised were relevant and to be considered by the forthcoming external review of IIMI. One TAC member expressedsurprise about the alleged gaps in irrigation research, and wondered if the problem was not overstated. Dr. Lenton, Director General, stated that Ambassador Blake had consulted IIMI, but the letter had not been written on the Centre’s initiative. IIMI did not have an institutional view on the matters raised. On the question of gaps in irrigation research, Dr. Lenton felt that these were not issues of gaps, but of complexity and scope exceeding available human and facial resources at IIMI. While ruling out an inter-centre revilew of irrigated agriculture at this stage, the 196. Chair, in his concluding comments, said that the questions raised by Ambassador Blake should be referred to the External Review Panel of IIMI. Meanwhile, the Chair would provide an appropriate reply to Ambassador Blake’s letter, based on TAC’s discussion, Future Meetings (Agenda Item 9) 197. TAC TAC TAC TAC 198. TAC 66 TAC 67 62 63 64 65 The following dates and venues were considered and approved: 18-23 October 1993 21-27 March 1994 20-26 June 1994 17-22 October 1994 IFPRI, Washington DC, USA FAO, Rome, Italy WARDA, Bouake, Cote d’Ivoire IFPRI, Washington DC, USA Tentative dates were noted as follows: 6-12 March 1995 a seven day period between 11-25 July 1995 venue to be identified venue to be identified ANNEX 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL Dr. A.F. McCalla Chair Technical Advisory Committee/CGIAR 219 E Street, Suite 2C Davis, CA 956164577, USA Dr. A. Berkaloff Universim Paris XI Institut de Microbiologic - Bit 409 91405 Orsay Cedex France Dr. Gerard0 Budowski Apartado 198 2300 Curridabat San Jose, Costa Rica Dr. Kamla Chowdhry c/o ICRISAT New Delhi 23 Golf Links New Delhi 110 023, India Dr. Raoul Dudal Institute for Land and Water Management Vital Decosterstraat, 102 B-3000 Leuven . Belgium Dr. Hans M. Gregersen College of Forestry University of Minnesota Room 110, Green Hall 1530 N. Cleveland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108, USA Dr. Ken-I&i Hayashi Special Advisor Tropical Agricultural Research Centre 4-24- 11 Nishiiiebukoro Toshima, Tokyo 171, Japan ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr. Ted Henzell 182 Dewar Terrace Corinda QLD 4075 Australia Dr. E.A. Huisman Head, Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries University of Wageningen P.O. Box 338 6700 Wageningen, The Netherlands Dr. Eugenia Muchnik de Rubinstein Director Graduate Programme in Economics Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile Casilla 306 Santiago, Chile Dr. Richard Sylvester Musangi Villa Maria Enterprises Ltd. P.O. Box 14330 Nakuru, Kenya Sir Ralph Riley 16 Gog Magog Way Stapleford Cambridge CB2 5BQ United Kingdom Dr. Ammar Siamwalla Thaiiand Development Research Institute 163 Rajapak Bldg., 15th Fl., Asoke Road, Sukhumvit 21, Prakanong, Bangkok 10110 Thailand Annex 1 - page 2 Dr. Peter Magnus Alexander Tigerstedt Helsinki University Department of Plant Biology Viikkid 00710 Helsinki Finland Dr. Saydil-Moukhtar K. Toure Directeur Centre de Recherches sur les Trypanosomoses Animales (CRTA) 01 BP 454 Bobo Dioulasso 01 Burkina Faso CGIAR MEMBERS Janan Mr. Kiyoshi Niina International Cooperation Division Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries l-2- 1 Kasuigaseki, Chiyoda-Ku Tokyo, Japan COSPONSORS OF THE CGIAR Dr. Maria Jose de 0. Zimmermann EMBRAPA - CNPAF Caixa Postal 179 74001-970 Goikia, GO Brazil Dr. Mohamed Zehni Director Research and Technology Development Division Via delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy BOARD CHAIRS’ COMMITTEE Dr. Enrico Proceddu renresenting Dr. John Dillon, Chairman of Board Chairs Committee Annex 1 - page 3 CENTRE DIRECTORS’ COMMITTEE Dr. Nasrat Fadda Chair, Centre Directors’ Committee INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTRES Centre for International Forestrv Research KIFORJ Dr. Jeffrey A. Sayer Director General Jalan Gunung Batu 65 P.O. Box 161 Bogor 16001 West Java, Indonesia Dr. John R. Palmer Research Planning Adviser International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Drv Areas (ICARDA) Dr. Nasrat R. Fadda Director General P.O. Box 5466 Aleppo, Syria Dr. Aart van Schoonhoven Deputy Director General (Research) International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI) Dr. Roberto Lemon Director General P.O. Box 2075 Colombo, Sri Lanka Dr. Khalid Mohtadullah Deputy Director General Ms. Nanda Abeywickrema Director, International Cooperation Dr. Jacob Kijne Director of Research Ms. Marian Fuchs-Carsch Project Development Officer Dr. Enrico Porceddu Chair, ICARDA Board of Trustees Institute of Agricultural Biology University of Tuscia Via S.C. de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy Annex 1 - page 4 OTHER PARTICIPANTS Dr. Jock R. Anderson Chair, ICARDA EPMR World Bank 1818 H Street N.W. Washington DC 20433 USA CGIAR SECRETARIAT Dr. Donald L. Plucknett Scientific Advisor World Bank 1818 H Street N.W. Washington DC 20433 USA Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz Management Advisor Mr. Ravi Tadvalkar Senior Finance Officer Mr. Jean Pierre Jacqmotte Senior Finance Officer Mr. Robin Lemp Finance Officer TAC SECRETARIAT Dr. John H. Monyo Executive Secretary FAO Via delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy Dr. Guido Gryseels Deputy Executive Secretary Dr. Amir Kassam Senior Agricultural Research Officer Dr. Philip Kio Senior Forestry Research Officer Dr. Vivian Timon Senior Agricultural Research Officer Ms. Marioara Lantini Programme Assistant Ms. Dominique Veck-Rosignoli Secretary ANNEX 2 AGENDA 1. Opening Session Opening Remarks Adoption of the TAC 60 Report Adoption of the Agenda 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ICARDA External Review Towards a CGIAR Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources (PGR) CIFOR Medium-Term Plan Medium-Term Resource Allocation Process Implications of TAC’s Recommendationson Priorities for Future CGIAR Strategies and Structure Future Reviews Other Business CIP Budget Request Report on the Meeting of the Committee on SustainableDevelopment SPEAR Technical Consultation on an Ecoregional Approach to Agricultural Research CAB1 Review Conference Research on Irrigated Agriculture 7. a. 9. Future Meetings ANNEX 3 LIST OF DOCUMENTS Item 1 Document Draft Report of the 60th Meeting df the Technical Advisory Committee Report of the Third External Programme and Management Review of the International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas WARM ICARDA’s Preliminary Responseto the 1993 Extekal Programme and Management Review Number/Source AGR/TAC:IAR/93/9 2 AGIUTAC:IARf93/7 Centre Document 4 International Forestry Research: Towards the 21st Century. A Provisional Medium-Term Plan for CIFOR 1993-1998 (Draft 9, May 1993) Future Reviews: IIMI, CIP and CIAT Progress Report Centre Document 7 AGRf TAC :IAR./93/ 8 ANNEX 4 TAC’s EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS CENTRE MTP PROPOSALS CIAT Evaluation TAC considered that on the basis of priority considerations, the amount of resources tentatively assignedto CIAT should be maintained. In determining the level of the tentative envelope, TAC had already incorporated an increase for the Centre’s work in the area of conservationand managementof natural resources, and for its focus on Latin America. CIAT’s proposals were sound and consistent, and were developed on the basis of a transparent and coherent priority-setting mechanism. The programmes are of a strategic character and have a good potential for breakthrough. TAC attached a high priority to CIAT’s proposals for resource management work which focus on important ecosystems. The three ecosystemsunder study are of vital importance to the future of resource-poor farmers in Latin America: the hillsides programme is particularly important for equity reasons; the savannaprogramme offers tremendous scope for productivity increases; and the forest margin programme addresses many of the major sustainability issuesthat are of vital importance. The Committee considered that, if CIAT were to be funded below the 110% level, then commodity programmes should be scaled down first. The strong reduction in the scale of the resource managementprogrammes should only occur at the 90% funding level. CIAT’s proposals are ambitious and the successof their implementation will depend upon the effectiveness of a wide set of collaborative arrangementswith NARS, NGOs, other IARCs, advanced research institutes and bilateral programmes. The proposed cuts in staff at the base level and the 90% level may be compensatedby strengthening such collaborative arrangements. CIAT has performed very well in the past and this is likely to continue in the future. The Centre is well managed, and has a healthy institutional environment and effective mechanisms for collaboration with NARS and other institutions. ON TAC recommends that CIAT be assignedcore resources in 1998 in the amount of US$ 27.5 million in 1992 dollars which is equivalent to 100% of the tentative envelope. The Committee considers that the level of the tentative envelope adequately reflects CIAT’s potential contribution to the achievement of System priorities. TAC encourages CIAT to maintain the main features of its forest margin programme at the expense of scaling down its commodity programmes within this funding level. CIAT has also been identified as the convening centre for an ecoregional programme for the humid and sub- Annex 4 - page 2 humid tropics and subtropics in Latin America for which US$ 750,000 of core resources by 1998 is recommended, At the US$280 million vector, TAC recommended an additional US$ 750,000 to enable CIAT to maintain its commodity research which, at the US$ 270 million vector, is projected to decreasein favour of the forest margin programme. At the US$ 280 million vector, TAC also recommends an increase of US$ 200,000 of the funding of the Systemwi.deLAC ecoregional initiative. For 1998, CIAT projects complementary funding of US$ 8 million (in 1992 values), representing 29% of CIAT’s recommended core funding for that year. For 1994, TAC recommends a core funding for CIAT of US$25 ,O million in 1992 dollars, or US$27 .O million in current values. Together with complementary funding at US$ 10.1 million, total funding of CIAT in 1994 would amount to US$ 37.1 million. CIFOR Evaluation TAC commended CIFOR for putting together comprehensive medium-term proposals within months of its establishment as a Centre. The proposals are to some extent to be considered as preliminary, pending recruitment of staff. The main thrust of CIFOR’s MTP proposal is the policy development programme. This programme will consume iabout29% of the entire MTP core resources and 35% of the senior staff years - to the four research programmes. Even the biological and technological programmes are expected to produce data and knowledge contributing to the determination of policy options. This substantial allocation of resources to the policy research programme is in line with CIFOR’s determination to make an early impact on the forestry policy domain. However, the strong emphasisplaced on policy research has inevitably led to a degree of overlap with IFPRI’s research activities. As much as one third of its policy work may impinge on IFPRI’s activities. Consequently, there should be a high degree of collaboration and consultation between the two Centres to ensure synergism and to minimize duplication of efforts. Similarly, care should be taken by CIFOR in respect of its activities in agroforestry, Imnerata grassland rehabilitation and tree improvement to maintain strict complementarity with ICRAF’s work in these areas. TAC considers that CIFOR’s research proposals are of a strategic character and is encouraged about the collaborative approach the Centre is taking in developing its research programme. CIFOR stands to benefit from the worldwide interest in the control of deforestation and the maintenance of biodiversity. Its Programme 2 (Management and Conservation of Natural Forests) fits very neatly into the provision of Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 of UNCED. With well-articulated projects, funding from complementary sources may be easily secured. Annex 4 - page 3 Recommendations TAC recommends that CIFOR be assignedin 1998 core resources in the amount of US$ 7.6 million in 1992 dollars, which is equivalent to 100% of the tentative envelope. This level of funding is thought adequateat the stage of present development of the new Centre and the need to avoid a too rapid rate of growth. No addition is recommended at the US$280 million vector. However, the Centre would share in the funding recommended for the ‘Alternatives to Slash and Rum’ Systemwide initiative, for which ICRAF would serve as the convening centre, and also in other ecoregional initiatives. For 1998, CIFOR projects complementary funding of US$2.8 million (in 1992 dollars) in 1998, representing 37% of CIFOR’s recommended core funding. For 1994, TAC recommends a core funding for CIFOR of US$5.3 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 5.8 million in current values, Together with complementary funding at US$O.9 million, total funding of CIFOR in 1994 would amount to US$6.6 million. CIMMYT Evaluation CIMMYT’s MTP proposals are concise, transparent, and well reasoned. The priorities among and within programmes areclearly articulated and the objectives and targets have been well stated. Despite the reduced size of its staff and less funds than in the past, CIMMYT’s MTP proposals provide an excellent scope for high quality research, achievements and impact. TAC recognizes that while CIMMYT has emerged from the MTP exercise with a more focused and more streamlined operation, the enforced downsizing has neverthelessaffected the scale and scope of its operations and impact. If the downsizing were to continue, it would seriously affect the performance of the Centre. TAC considered that on priority considerations the tentative planning envelope assigned to . CIMMYT should be readjusted upwards. With respect to CIMMYT’s planned activities in maintenancebreeding, TAC notes a certain reluctance on the part of CIMMYT to relinquish some aspectsof its germplasm enhancementand breeding activities. However, TAC notes that CIMMYT has devolved some of its training activities to selectednational institutions in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. TAC would encourage CIMMYT to continue to devolve the routine aspects of breeding, including maintenance breeding, to the stronger national programmes. TAC considered that CIMMYT’s proposals were of a highly strategic character and with a very good potential for breakthroughs. CIMMYT has an excellent record in generating farm level impact and this is expected to continue. CIMMYT is well managed and has a healthy institutional environment. It collaborates well with NARS and other institutions. Annex 4 - page 4 Recommendations On the basis of the additional information provided by CIMMYT and the views expressed by the Group at ICW’92, TAC found that there were convincing arguments for an increase in the resource envelope of US!§ 24.1 million (in 1992 dollars) which had been tentatively assigned to CIMMYT. TAC recommends that CIMMYT be assigned for 1998 core resources in the amount of US$26.5 million which corresponds to 110% of the tentative resource envelope. With this level of funding at the US$ 270 million vector, TAC expects CIMMYT to strengthen its ma:izeand wheat genetic enhancementwork, biotechnology applications, natural resources managementresearch, and research support services. This recommendation takes into account the importance of wheat and maize in developing countries, CIMMYT’s impressive record of impact, and potential for future breakthroughs, and institutional health. CIMMYT will also benefit from funds recommended for Systemwide ecoregional and water managementinitiatives. At the US$280 million vector CIMMYT would benefit from enhanced Systemwide activities in ecoregional research and water management. For 1998, CIMMYT projects complementary funding at US!§ 7.6 million (in 1992 values), which represents 29% of the Centre’s recommended core funding for that year. For 1994, TAC recommends a core funding of CIMMYT of US$23.3 million in 1992 dollars, or US$25.2 million in current values. Together with complementary funding of US$ 8.2 million, total funding of CIMMYT in 1994 will amount to US!§ 33.5 million. CIP Evaluation TAC saw no compelling reason on priority considerations to change the tentative level of resources assigned to CIP. The priority assignedto research on potato and sweet potato remains unchanged and TAC considers that the resource managementaspectsof the Andean Programme should be funded fralm complementary sources as the Andes are not considered as a high-priority ecoregion for the CGIAR. The Committee attaches high priority to the work on lesser-known roots and tubers in the Andes however. While the demand for potato in developing countries is growing rapidly, TAC also noted the substantial amount of research on this commodity in developed countries. With respect to sweet potato, TAC recalls that this commodity is predominantly grown in China and used increasingly as a livestock feed and for industrial purposes. CIP has a transparent, coherent priority-setting mechanism which, however, does not yet include &proposed Andean Programme. TAC considers that CIP’s proposals are of a strategic character and that they provide good potential for breakthroughs. CIP has performed well in the past and with its new impact-oriented strategy it is expected to do even better in the future. While the political situation in the host country is a continuing source of concern, some progress has hex 4 - page 5 been made lately. CIP.is managed well and has demonstrated its ability to cope with difficulties related to host country situations, compounded by funding restrictions. CIP has excellent collaboration and partnership with national research systems around the world and has very innovative mechanismsfor collaboration with advanced research institutes. Recommendations TAC recommends that CIP be assignedin 1998 core resources in the amount of US$ 14.3 million (in 1992 dollars) which is equivalent to 100% of the tentative envelope, under the US$270 million vector. TAC considers that the level of the tentative envelope adequately reflects the potential contribution of CIP to the achievement of System priorities. In a situation of more restrained funding, TAC would encourage CIP to maintain its applications of biotechnology which have proven to be successful in the past. CIP could also be a major partner in the proposed Systemwide ecoregional programme for the humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics in Latin America for which CIAT will be the convening centre. For 1998, CIP projects complementary funding of US$5.6 mihion (in 1992 dollars), which represents 39% of CIP’s recommendedcore funding. For 1994, TAC recommends core funding of US$ 14.3 million in 1992 dollars or US$ 15.5 million in current values. Together with a projected complementary funding of US$ 5.8 million, CIP’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$21.4 million. In addition to the core funding of US$ 15.5 million, TAC recommends to reinstate the onetime compensation of US$ 950,000 in 1994 to allow CIP to restore its working capital which was virtually depleted in 1989-92 as a consequenceof difficult economic circumstances in its host country. IBPGR Evaluation TAC considers that IBPGR’s MTP proposal is clear and well thought through. It reflects the implementation of IBPGR’s new strategic plan and its responseto the recommendations of the Third External Review in 1991. The MTP document and the Centre response to TAC’s interim commentary make a convincing case for IBPGR’s vision of the minimum core programme required to implement its strategy, as well as the additional work that would be undertaken under a more favourable funding environment. IESPGR’s regional and thematic priorities are realistic and forward looking, and the programmes are structured to ensure the required critical mass and scientific credibility. TAC considers that IBPGR’s programmes are catalytic and have a clear focus. The institution building activities and the strategic research work are an excellent response to the changing global perspectives on plant genetic resources, and the challenges and opportunities arising from the follow-up to UNCED. IRPGR’s work is important because of the magnitude and the fundamental nature of the task, particularly in the traditional areas of ex situ conservation. However, some of the second generation problems - e.g., Annex 4 - page 6 strengthening links to users; effective conservation strategies related to core collections and genepools; &J sits conservation; and improving international collaboration - are of a long-term nature, and breakthroughs may be relatively difficult to achieve. IBPGR has an excellent reputation at the international and national level, and is recognized as a lead player in the field of plant genetic resources. Its work has generally been of high quality and relevance. IBPGR has transformed itself in the recent past, and is equipped with high calibre staff and managementto provide effective international leadership in the area of its mandate. TAC considers that IBPGR’s policy to promote activities throughout the world, including Europe, is appropriate, given the global nature of the work on plant genetic resources. IBPGR’s collaborative arrangementsreflect the recognition of the importance of national programmes in a coordinated global effort, and its role in providing scientific and technical expertise and information. On the basis of the above and additional information provided by IBPGR, and in the light of UNCED and other recent developments in the global perspectives on plant genetic resources and b&livers@, TAC considered that the amount of resources tentatively assigned to IBPGR should be revised upwards. IBPGR’s plan addressesissues of high priority to the CGIAR and forms an appropriate responseto the changing global perspectives on the conservation and use of lplant genetic resources, and the concerns for biodiversity. IBPGR’s collaboration with NARS, other IARCs and advanced institutions is impressive, wide ranging and generally effective. It has always relied on linkages with .partners, including development agencies, to achieve its objectives. Recommendations TAC recommends that, at the US$1270 million vector, IBPGR’s core resources for 1998 should be US$ 9.2 million (in 1992 dollars), which is equivalent to 110% of the tentative envelope. At this funding level, TAC expects IBPGR to include the Coconut Genetics Resource Network into its core programme. IBPGR will also be the convening centre for the implementation of a Systemwide initiative on plant genetic resources (see Section 3.1.2.). For that programme, TAC recommends that US$ 1 million be allocated from 1996 onwards at the US$ 270 million vector, and that this amount be increased to US$ 2 million at the US$ 280 million vector. TAC recommends that IBPGR’s ow.n core resources (i.e. excluding the Systemwide initiative) should increase by US$ 1.5 million (in 1992 values) at the US$ 280 million vector. TAC expects that this would allow IBPGR to include in its core programme the work on forest genetic resourceslbiodiversity/in situ conservation/ethnobotany (scenario 2), and aa population genetics and the genetic structures of populations. Also for 1998, IBPGR projects complementary funding of US$ 5.5 million (in 1992 values), which represents 60% of its recommended core funding. Annex 4 - page 7 For 1994, TAC recommends a core funding for IBPGR of US$ 8.6 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 9.3 million in current values. Together with complementary funding at US$ 3.8 million, total funding of IBPGR in 1994 would amount to US$ 13.1 million. ICARDA ICARDA’s MTP proposal is clear, has been prepared through an interactive process with its national programme partners, and reflects the implementation of the Centre’s strategy. Its proposal is consistent with CGIAR priorities and strategies. The tentative resource envelope assignedto ICARDA, reflected TAC’s views on the priority of the WANA region, of the mandate commodities of the Centre and of ICARDA’s increased emphasis on natural resources managementand policy research. At TAC 61, the Committee saw no compelling reason on priority considerations to change the level of this tentative envelope. TAC considered that ICARDA’s proposals were generally of a strategic character with a good potential for breakthrough, taking into account the difficulties of making progress in arid and semi-arid environments. ICARDA has performed well in the past, and the recent external review has given firm indications that past managementproblems have been resolved and that the institute is institutio~lly healthy. TAC notes that one of ICARDA’s strengths lies in its collaboration with national research systems and partnerships with other institutions, including other CGIAR centres. It sees the effectiveness of these linkages as a major advantageas the Centre expands its engagement in ecoregional activities. TAC agrees with ICARDA’s cautious approach about its involvement in the Central Asian Republics and with irrigated agriculture. The Committee would encourage ICARDA to study carefully the suggestionsof the recent external review with respect to restructuring of programmes for a more effective use of resources. TAC also notes that ICARDA’s future involvement in livestock research should be in accordancewith the global CGIAR strategy for livestock research which, following the decisions taken at MTM’93, is currently under discussion for implementation. TAC urges ICARDA to pay particular attention to its fund-raising strategy, such that donor commitment would reach, as a minimum, the level of the core resource envelope. j TAC recommends that ICARDA be assignedin 1998 core resources of US$ 17.6 million (in 1992 dollars), equivalent to 100% of the tentative envelope. TAC considers that this level corresponds to the potential contribution the Centm can make to the achievement of System priorities. ICARDA has also been identified as the convening centre for a Systemwide ecoregional programme in WANA (cool subtropics with winter rainfall), for which an amount of US$400,000 has been recommendedby 1998 under the US$270 million vector; at the US!§ 280 million vector, TAC recommends that this amount be increased by US!§ 125,000. Annex 4 - page 8 ICARDA has also been identified as,a participant in a Systemwide water management programme (see Section 3.1.2) with IIMI as the convening centre, and for which US$ 1 million has been recommended at the US$270 million vector, and an additional US$ 1 million at the US$ 280 million vector. For 1998, ICARDA projects complementary funding of US$3.5 million (in 1992 values), which represents 20% of ICARDA’s recommended core funding for that year. For 1994, TAC recommends a core funding for ICARDA of US$ 13.8 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 14.9 million in current values. Together with complementary funding at US$3.8 million, total funding of ICARDA in 1994 would amount to US$ 18.7 million. ICLARM Evaluation TAC considered that the .priority to be assignedto fisheries research had already been adequately reflected in the level of the tentative resource envelope assignedto ICLARM in March 1992. Fisheries research is a new venture in the CGIAR and the CGIAR should plan its involvement cautiously. ICLARM’s revised MTP proposal is in tune with the ‘CGIAR Guidelines for the Preparation of MTP Proposals’, and is less ambitious than the original plan. TAC considered that the revised MTP proposal, at the level of the indicative resource envelope, reflected an appropriate level of effort required to implement the strategic plan for international fisheries research developed by ICLARM. Recent developments, such as UIWED, had stressedthe importance of fisheries research for developing countries and there is increasing evidence that many of the major species are now over-fished. TAC considers that the major challenge facing ICLARM during the forthcoming MTP period will be to transform itself from a project- to a programme-driven organization with institutional cohesion. ICLARM’s successas a CGIAR institute will be . dependent upon the implementation of a range of programme and management recommendations made by the External Review Panel. TAC endorses the Inland Aquatic Resource SystemsProgramme which is of high priority to the CGIAR The focus of the Coml Reef SystemsProgramme may be too broad. Furthermore, TAC considers that there is no convincing proof that the productivity of coral reef fisheries can be increased significantly by stock enhancement procedures. It urges ICLARM to fast undertake research on this key question. TAC would encourage ICLARM to maintain the information activities even in a situation of budgetary restraint. As indicated earlier, TAC had considered ICLARM’s original primary proposal at 224% of the base envelope to be too ambitious and involving too rapid rates of growth. TAC considers that ICLARM’s revised proposal is of a strategic character reflecting the implementation of its strategic plan. There are good chancesfor breakthroughs but the institutional health and the quality of governance and management and their sustenance- will continue to be a source of concern to TAC. ICLARM Annex 4 - page 9 collaborates well with other institutions particularly with NARS and advanced institutions. ICLARM also intends to collaborate closely with IFPRI, IITA, WARDA, IIMI, ISNAR and IRRI. Recommendations TAC recommends that ICLARM be assignedcore resources in the amount of US$4.8 million (in 1992 dollars) in 1998, i.e., at the level of the indicative envelope. TAC has attempted to take a long-term perspective on ICLARM so as not to be unduly influenced by current problems of managementand governance. If the Centre improves its institutional health and if the Mid-Term Review of ICLARM provides convincing evidence that its research programmes can be implemented effectively, a further US$ 500,000 will be added to the envelope during 1996 and another tranche of US$ 500,000 during 1997. These additional allocations, treated as a reserve, are intended for the natural resources managementthrust of the Inland Aquatic Resource Systems Programme, and for research on the managementof resource systems in a social context of the Coastal SystemsProgramme. If more resources were to become available to the CGIAR, TAC recommends that at the US$280 million vector, a further US$ 1 million be assigned to Systemwide fisheries research - for which ICLARM would likely be the convening centre - in support of ecoregional initiatives, particularly on inland valleys with WARDA and IITA, and for joint policy research with IFPRI and IIMI on common property resources and open accessissues. For 1998, ICLARM projects complementary funding of US$3.0 million (in 1992 values), equivalent to 63% of its recommendedcore funding for that year. For 1994, TAC recommends core funding for ICLARM in the amount of US$4.4 million in 1992 dollars, or US$4.7 million in current values. With complementary funding projected at US$ 3.3 million, ICLARM’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 8.0 million. ICRAF Evaluation ICRAF’s MTP proposal is congruent with the Centre’s long-term strategy and CGIAR’s priorities and strategies for forestry/agroforestry . ICRAF has been forthright and transparent in addressing the various issuesraised in connection with the MTP proposal. ICRAF’s Board and managementhave indicated that the targets set in the proposed research programmes are realizable, but ICR4F has to maintain the momentum evident in its work since its admission into the CGIAR System as well as sustain the goodwill and support of its current and prospective donors. ICRAF’s leadership role in the ‘Alternatives to Slash and Burn Agriculture’ initiative in sub-SaharanAfrica, South-East Asia and Latin America is appropriate. This project may be the precursor of many such research programmes for the realization of some of the objectives under Agenda 21 of UNCED. Annex 4 - page 10 ICRAF has repeatedly assertedthat it can maintain scientific quality while at the same time expanding the activities of the Centre. But scientific quality is not determined solely by the recruitment of high quality scientists; it also depends on the design of programmes, monitoring of programme development and field activities, as well as closer interaction between Centre scientists and collaborators. TAC considered IClWF’s proposal to be generally of a strategic nature with a good potential for breakthrough. ICRAF is well managed and, as indicated by the recent external review, is institutionally healthy. The Centre has a very good record for collaboration with NARS and other partner institutions. Recommendations TAC recommends that ICRAF be assignedin 1998 core resources in the amount of US$ 14.0 million (in 1992 dollars), equivallentto 90% of the tentative envelope it was assigned in March 1992. The cutback from the tentative envelope level was recommended, in part, due to concern for a too-rapid development of the Centre and, in part, due to a need for a less pronounced involvement in fully-fledged tree breeding activities. TAC considered that the tentative envelope level assignedoriginally to ICRAF had been too high. TAC shared the concern of the External Review Panel about the possibility of an adverse trade-off between scientific quality and a too rapid rate of expansion. The recommended envelope still represents an increase in constant terms of US$ 2.9 million - or 26 % - over ICRAF’s actual 1992 core funding. TAC also recommends US$250,000 of funding to the Systemwide initiative on natural resources managementresearch in the East and Central African highlands, and US$ 500,000 to the (currently ICRAF-led) Systemwide initiative on ‘Alternatives to Slash and Burn’, for both of which ICRAF will be the convening centre. Under the US$ 280 million vector, the funding of each of these Systemwide initiatives would be increased by US$ 500,000. For 1998, ICRAF projects complementary funding of US$2 million (in 1992 values), representing 14% of ICRAF’s recommended core funding for that year. For 1994, TAC recommends a core funding for ICRAF of US$ 11.9 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 12.9 million in current values. Together with complementary funding at US$ 1.5 million, total funding of ICRAF in 1994 would amount to US$ 14.4 million. ICRISAT Evaluation TAC saw no compelling reason on priority considerations to change the amount of resource envelope initially assignedto ICRJSAT. The priority factors that work in favour of ICRISAT such as its activities in Asia, its focus on natural resources management, and its work on groundnut had already been reflected in determining the Annex4-page level of that envelope. While confiiing its recommendation made in the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies that ICRISAT should de-emphasizeresearch on pigeonpea, TAC considered that it would take time to phase out research on that commodity. ICRISAT’s proposal to continue pigeonpea research, building on the .momentum of the successof the hybrid variety the Centre developed, and to assessits future involvement with the crop in 1997, was considered to be sensible. ICRISAT’s priority-setting process is transparent and analytical. 11 TAC considers that ICRISAT’s programme is of a strategic character and has good potential for breakthroughs. TAC appreciatesthe priority-setting methodology which has clear milestones against which progress can be measured. As indicated by its most recent External Review, ICRISAT has performed well in the past and there are firm indications that it will continue to do so. ICRISAT is well managed and is a healthy institution. It collaborates well with NARS and other organizations, ICRISAT has had a major impact on farm-level productivity particularly through its research on pearl millet. TAC is also pleased with the rapid progress made by ICRISAT and IRRI in developing proposals for an ecoregional approach in different agroecological zones of Asia. TAC recommends that for 1998 ICRISAT be assignedcore resources of US$26.9 million (in 1992 values) which is equivalent to 100% of the tentative envelope assigned in March 1992. TAC specifically endorsed Plan B in the MTP proposal which, compared to ICRISAT’s primary proposal, removes the 12 lowest-ranking themes to . reduce the funding requirement to the level of the base resource envelope. TAC supports ICRISAT’s plan to intensify discussionswith the Indian national research system on sharing responsibility for pigeonpea research. In recognition of the importance of the needs of the warm arid and semi-arid tropics of sub-SaharanAfrica, TAC also’recommends an increase of US$ 1 million of ICRISAT’s envelope at the US$ 280 million vector, so as to allow the Centre to strengthen its ecoregional role and activities on natural resources management in the Sahelian area. ICRISAT has been identified as the convening centre for a Systemwide ecoregional programme for the arid and semi-arid zones in sub-SaharanAfrica for which TAC recommends funding in the amount of US$500,000 by 1998. ICRISAT was also identified as the convening centre for a Systemwide ecoregional programme in the warm arid and semi arid zones of Asia for which TAC recommends US$400,000 in funding by 1998. This latter programme will also incorporate elements of the CIMMYT-IRRI ricewheat programme. At the US!§280 million vector, TAC recommends that funding of these initiatives be increased, in 1998, by US$ 150,000 and US$ 125,000 respectively. For 1998, ICRISAT projects complementary funding at US!§5.5 million (in 1992 values), representing 20% of its recommendedcore funding. For 1994, TAC recommends core funding for ICRISAT in the amount of US$ 25,4 million in 1992 values, or US$ 27.4 million in current values. With Annex 4 - page 12 complementary funding projected at US$ 7.9’ million, IClUSAT’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 35.3 million. IFIPRI Evaluation TAC considered that on priority considerations the amount of resources assigned to IFPRI should be revised upwards. In the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies TAC recommended that the amount of core resources allocated to public policy research should be increased substantially. TAC considered that this was inadequately reflected in the amount of IFPlU’s tentative envelope, assignedin March 1992. Recent developments, such as UNCED, had stressed. the importance of policy factors in the process of resource and environmental degradation. IFPRI’s MTP proposal reflects the increasing emphasis by the Institute on environmental and natural resources management issues which are of high priority to the CGIAR. IFPRI’s programmes were well balanced and thought through, and the rationale for the Institute’s priorities is well argued. TAC considers IFPRI’s MTP to be coherent, well argued and transparent. IFPRI’s programme proposals are of a highly strategic character addressing the critical future policy research issuesof international importance. There is substantial potential for breakthroughs through research for the development of alternative options for policy makers. IFPRI has a very good record of performance and the results of the recent Interim External Review, as well as of ongoing research programmes, give a clear indication that the Institute will continue to deliver high quality research in the future. IFPRI is well managed and is now institutionally healthy. It has excellent collaborations with national institutions and other organizations conducting policy work. TAC is impressed with IFPRI’s new multi-country programmes and considers its work on natural resources management policies, particularly on property rights and communal action to be of very high priority. IFPRI’s core programme accounts for approximately 90% of the Institute’s total activities. This core component has been defmed on the basis of specific programmatic criteria, and not on a source of funds basis. Only part of this core programme will be supported by CGIAR core funding. IFPRI intends to implement the balance with funding considered as complementary by the CGIAR TAC has carefully considered the proposed balance between core funds and complementary funds, which is expected to evolve to an overall share of 53% core and 47 % complementary by 1998. The Committee recognizes that the proposed share of complementary funding is high and would nolrmally involve a danger of over-dependency on restricted funds. In the particular case of IFPFU, however, TAC considers that the proposed ratio is reasonable. IFPRI has a high cost per scientist, even though it does not have the fmed expensesassociatedwith work. in the natural sciences. The extra cost is due to the need to collect survey data. On the other hand, IFPRI is not committed to the maintenance of fixed structures, which in contrast with other centres gives IFPRI greater flexibility in managing its resources. Its dependenceon complementary funding cannot, on balance, be considered imprudent. TAC also recognizes that scale is an important factor in IFPRI’s differentiation between core and complementary activities. IFPRI’s core Annex 4 - page 13 programme should consist of a critical basket of activities by subject matter and region, beyond which more is appropriate but does not necessarily have to be funded with scarce core resources. IFPRI has a wide set of effective collaborative arrangements with other centres. TAC considers it to be appropriate that IFPRI makes its involvement with other centres dependent on the degree to which the activities of that centre fit within its own priority research programme. IFPRI should not be expected to provide service functions in the CGIAR despite the fact - as recognized by TAC - that demand for policy research is far greater than IFPRI can supply. TAC will addressthis issue further during 1994 in the proposed strategic stripe review of public policy and public managementresearch in the CGIAR. Recommendations TAC considered that both on priority and institutional considerations the amount of resources assigned to IFPRI should be revised upwards. In the Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies TAC recommendedthat the amount of core resources allocated to public policy research should be increased substantially. TAC considered that this was inadequately reflected in the amount of IFPRI’s tentative envelope, assigned in March 1992. Recent developments, such as UNCED, had stressedthe importance of policy factors in the process of resource and environmental degradation. The recent Interim External Review of IFPN has also indicated that IFPRI will continue to deliver high quality research and is institutionally healthy. Therefore, TAC recommends that IFPRI be assignedfor 1998 core resources of US!§ 9.5 million (in 1992 dollars) which is equivalent to 110% of the indicative resource envelope. The Committee expects that this will allow IFPRI to give greater attention to research on natural resources management. TAC would also encourage the Institute to give greater attention to macroeconomic studies with respect to sustainability. While this latter research is currently not within the 110% proposal, TAC considers this work to be of higher priority than the proposed work on input markets which are included in that proposal. IFPRI is also expected to contribute to several of the proposed Systemwide ecoregional initiatives for which TAC recommends programme funding and IFPRI will share in the US$ 1 million allocated to the initiative on fisheries policy research assigned under the US$ 280 million System vector. For 1998, IFPRI projects complementary funding of US$ 8.2 million (in 1992 dollars), representing 86% of its recommended core funding. For 1994, TAC recommends core funding for IFPRI in the amount of US$ 8.1 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 8.8 million in current values. With complementary funding projected at US$ 5.9 million, IFPRI’s total funding would amount to US$ 14.7 million. hex IIMI Evaluation 4 - page 14 IIMI has prepared an analytical and a well reasonedMTP proposal which is based on its ‘Strategic Plan for the 1990’s’ (issued in 1991) and on the major recommendations of the 1990 External Review. TAC is broadly satisfied with the additional information provided by IIMI with respect to internal priorities, disciplinary balance, criteria for country selection and collaborative research with other centres and with advanced institutions. TAC is also satisfied with IIMI’s criteria for country selection in respect of complementary and coreadd-on projects. TAC notes IIMI’s arguments for the current and proposed distribution of effort between Asia, WANA, Sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America. While agreeing in principle that IIMI should concentrate on regions and countries where irrigation plays a major role in the agricultural sector, TAC considers that IIMI should also take into account alternative sources of research suppby. Most of the developing countries with a large proportion of irrigated agriculture have relatively large and strong national research programmes. Further, IIMJ should not only consider the area currently under irrigation but future irrigation needs and potential as wdl. TAC is still concerned about the issue of programme focus with respect to the broadened mission, and critical mass, particularly with respect to the sector management and public organizations programmes. TAC notes that, by 1998, core and complementary activities will be virtually of equal importance. The high proportion of complementary activities, in relatively few countries, presents a major challenge to IIMI in ensuring effective support to its generic research and institution building activities. Finally, TAC is pleased about the collaborati~on IIMI has with national programmes and other research partners. Recommendations TAC recommends that IIMI be assignedcore resources for 1998 of US$ 7.6 million (in 1992 values) which is equivalent to 100% of the tentative envelope assigned in March 1992. TAC thereby took into account the importance of irrigated agriculture and of managing water as a public good in developing countries. No increase was recommended at the US$270 million vector becauseIIMI is still in a stage of transition from a country-focused, project-led operation to an international research organization. TAC noted that two of the five research programmes are still not operational and that IIMI will be subject to an external review in 1994 at which time its programmes will be assessedin terms of their strategic orientation, relevance and resource needs. IIMI has been identified as the convening centre for a proposed Systemwide initiative on water management research for which TAC recommends US$ 1 million of core resources by 1998 at the US$ 270 million vector. An additional US$ 1.O million is recommended at the US$ 280 million vector ,for this initiative to augment inter-centre Annex 4 - page 15 cooperation in irrigated cropping systems research, including watershed management, human health issues in irrigated areas, and downstream environmental problems created by irrigated agriculture. For 1998, IIMI projects complementary funding of US$7.1 million (in 1992 values), which represents 93 % of its recommended core funding. For 1994, TAC recommends core funding for IIMI in the amount of’ US$ 6.3 million in 1992 values, or US$ 6.8 million in current values. With complementary funding projected at US$5 million, IIMI’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 11.8 million. IITA Evaluation IITA’s programmes provide a good example of the integration of commodity improvement research with natural resources managementactivities within an ecoregional context. In this regard IITA proposes to conduct research on inland valleys as an integral part of the moist savannaand humid forest research programmes. TAC was pleased with the responseof IITA to the issues it had raised in its interim commentary. TAC considers that IITA’s research programme is coherent, and focusing on the critical strategic issues. The potential for scientific breakthroughs and probability of successare high, particularly with cassava,banana, maize and soybean, and with integrated pest and nutrient management. There have been significant achievements in the past with crop improvement and in pest control. The Centre is well endowed with human and physical resources, and it is institutionally healthy. The Centre has extensive collaboration with national programmes, other centres and advanced institutions. More recently, the Centre has made special efforts to improve the sharing of responsibilities with national programmes, as well as other centres arrangements. The improved relationship between the Centre and the host country appearsto provide a conducive environment for future success. IITA is addressing issuesof high priority in sub-SaharanAfrica, and its strategic directions and target groups are in line with CGIAR priorities and strategies. IITA’s revised proposals at the level of the indicative base envelope, provide compelling arguments for additional core resources if the biological control programme is to be fully incorporated into core, and if the work on banana and plantain, as well as on soybean is to be sustained and expanded. Recommendations On the basis of additional information provided by IITA and in view of the forthcoming reorganization of the banana and plantain research in the CGIAR, TAC considers that, on priority considerations, the amount of resources tentatively assigned in March ‘1992 to IITA should be revised upwards. . Amex 4 - page 16 TAC recommends that IITA’s core resources for 1998 should amount to US$ 23.3 million (in 1992 dollars), which is equivalent to 105% of the indicative resource envelope. TAC expects IITA to include, at that level of resources, the operational costs of the biological control programme, and to sustain and expand its activities on banana and plantain and soybean. In addition, TAC recommends that, by 1998, US$ 500,000 of core resources should be made available towards a Systemwide ecoregional programme for the warm humid and sub-humid tropics in sub-SaharanAfrica, for which IITA would be the convening centre and would work in close collaboration with other centres, and with WARDA in particular for work on inland valleys. At the US$ 280 million vector, TAC recommends an increase of US$200,000 for this Systemwide initiative. For 1998, IITA projects complementary funding of US$ 7.4 million (in 1992 values), which represents 32% of its recommended core funding for that year. For 1994, TAC recommends a core funding for IITA of US!§ 20.8 million in 1992 dollars, or US$22.5 million in current values. Together with complementary funding at US$ 8.0 million, total funding of IITA in 1994 would amount to US!§ 30.5 million. ILCA Evaluation In evaluating ILCA’s MTP proposal, TAC first considered ILCA’s assertion that the actual 1991 distribution of its resources over the five categories of activity (i.e., 10%) 4%, 39%) 10% and 28%) was significantly different from the distribution percentages used by TAC and shown in Chapter 14 of its report on CGIAB priorities and strategies. The Committee noted that the resource distribution in the 1994-98 MTP proposal mirrored closely the 1991 percentagesas estimated by ILCA. Broadly speaking, TAC was satisfied with ILCA’s responseto the questions raised in the interim commentary. However, ILCA’s assertion hat 25 % of its research activities would have direct relevance to regions outside sub-SaharanAfrica lacked adequatejustification, and the Committee was not convinced that the issue of ILCAKXAF collaboration in the East and Central African highlands is, as yet, adequately resolved. On balance, TAC did not see any compelling reason to change ILCA’s original indicative resource envelope at this stage. Furthermore, TAC noted that ILCA benefitted from a devaluation of the currency of the host country during 1992, which reduced its dollar denominated expenditures and the cost of its headquarters operations. TAC then proceeded to evaluate the focus, relevance and potential impact of the proposals outlined in ILCA’s MTP document in reference to current CGIAR priorities for livestock research. In its deliberations, the Committee was very much aware of the recent CGIAR decision to integrate ILCA and ILIAD into a new global livestock research entity. TAC concluded that ILCA’s proposed programmes are in line with the Centre’s Strategic Plan, and in programme terms, are closely compatible with CGIAB Priorities and Strategies for livestock research. However, TAC considers that a number of ILCA’s proposed programmes are premature at this point in time, in view of the Annex 4 - page 17 pending integration of components of ILCA and ILRAD into the new global livestock research entity. TAC considers that, overall, ILCA’s proposals are of a strategic character, but that much of the proposed programme can be more appropriately planned within the framework of the new livestock research entity. In this regard, much of feed research will be organized within the framework of ecoregional initiatives. The recent external review raised questions about ILCA’s past performance and about the institutional health of the Centre. TAC shared these concerns, but noted the recent improvements in research management, staff turnover, programme focus and publication output. TAC also commends ILCA on its strategy in developing strong partnerships with the national programmes in sub-SaharanAfrica. Recommendations Based on these priority and institutional assessments, and in reference to the proposed establishment of the new global livestock research entity, TAC recommends that, in 1998, core programmes - for which ILCA presently assumesresponsibility - be funded, in the framework of the new livestock research entity, at the level of US$ 14 million, i.e., the original indicative envelope assignedto ILCA in March 1992. In conjunction with this, TAC recommends that US$4 million of core resources be allocated to the new livestock research entity. Of this US$4 million, US$3 million would come from ILCA’s supplementary envelope and would be used by the new entity for collaborative feed research with ecoregional initiatives, and an additional US$ 1 million would be generated from savings on overhead when relevant components of ILCA, ILIAD and other centres are integrated into the new entity. It is also envisaged that the new global livestock research entity will be an active participant in several of the Systemwide ecoregional programmes for which a further US$4 million is recommended. Finally, TAC recommends a further support of US$ 750,000 to the global livestock entity within the US$ 280 million vector. In view of the future integration of ILCA components into the new entity for global livestock research, TAC recommends that ILCA’s budget be approved for a twoyear period with a one-year rolling horizon. For 1998, ILCA projects funding of complementary activities in the amount of US$ 7.4 million (in 1992 values); and for which the new livestock research entity will assume responsibility by that time. For 1994, TAC recommends core funds for ILCA of US$ 12.1 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 13.1 million in current values. Together with complementary funds projected at US$ 3.2 million, ILCA’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 16.3 million. Annex4-page ILIEUD Evaluation 18 TAC commends ILRAD for the transparent and analytical process followed in preparing the MTP proposals. The document is clearly written and the proposals are well argued and prioritised, reflecting the transparent nature of the analytical process adopted. ILRAD’s proposal to safeguard past achievementsthrough increased efforts in novel vaccine development for East Coast fever, maintaining the work on socioeconomics and environmental impact, and identification of genetic markers for trypanotolerance, deserves strong support. The scientific achievementsof ILRAD’s work on theileriosis and trypanosomiasis are impressive, although TAC is aware that ILRAD has been less successful with regard to institutional development and production impact on animal agriculture in Africa. However, TAC notes ILRAD’s expectations to complete laboratory development of an experimental vaccine for theileriosis, in the next five years. The MTP proposal clearly reflects.ILIWD’s revised strategic plan, which projects an expansion of the Centre’s operational mandate to include other tick-borne diseases, non tsetse-transmittedtrypanosomiasis, and ruminant genetics. The proposed expansion is in line with ILRAD’s mandate and TAC’s views on priorities and strategies for livestock research, currently under discussion. However, TAC seesno compelling reason to change the priority currently allocated for research on livestock diseasesin the CGIAR which it considers are adequately reflected in the supplementedresource envelope of US$ 11.1 million. The proportion of complementary activities in ILRAD’s work is very low. Due to the strategic and basic nature of the research, ILRAD does not appear to attract much donor support for complementary activities. Recommendations TAC recommends that, in 1998, co:reprogrammes - for which ILRAD presently assumesresponsibility - be funded, in the framework of the new livestock research entity, in the amount of US$ 11.1 million, i.e., the supplementedindicative core resource envelope assigned to ILRAD. In the light of the CGIAR decision to have a unified strategy, programme, and institutional mechanism for livestock research, into which the relevant components of ILRAD, ILCA and other centres are expected to be integrated within the next five years, TAC considers ILRAD to be a centre in transition. In conjunction with TAC’s recommendation on ILRAD’s 1998 core funding level, TAC also recommends that US$ 4 million of core resources be allocated to the new livestock research entity. Of this US!§ 4 million, USS 1 million would be generated from savings on overhead when ILCA and ILFWD are integrated into the new single entity. It is also envisaged that the new global livestock research entity will be an active participant in several of the Systemwide ecoregional progmmmes for which a further US$4 million is recommended. Finally, TAC recommends a further support of US$750,000 to the new livestock research entity within the US$2801 million vector. Annex 4 - page 19 In view of the future integration of ILRAD into the new entity for global livestock research, TAC recommends that ILRAD’s budget be approved for a two-year period with one-year rolling horizon. For 1998, ILRAD projects funding of complementary activities of US$400,000 (in 1992 values), for which the new livestock research entity will assumeresponsibility by that time. For 1994, TAC recommended core funds for BRAD of US$9.9 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 10.7 million in current values. Together with complementary funds projected at US$ 0.6 million, IL&D’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 11.3 million. INIBAP Evaluation In its 1992 review of CGIAR priorities and strategies, TAC stressedthe importance of banana and plantain in developing countries, especially for smallholders, and the need for CGIAR support to research on this crop. TAC notes INIBAP’s claim that 9.5 SSY would be the base minimum core critical mass required to implement the recommendationsof the Task Force and to meet CGIAR expectations on Musa research. To achieve this level of operation, INIBAP considers that it would require funding at the “Full Programme” Scenario. At both the 100% and 110% scenarios, INIBAP statesthat one key position will not be filled, However, the position has not been specified, and the MTP proposal does not state the programmatic implications of not filling this position. Further, TAC notes INIBAP’s plan to maintain its presence in the regions through the outposting of Germplasm Officers. Given the projected resource constraints, TAC considered that INIBAP should explore alternative mechanismsfor such outposting, such as working through IITA in sub-SaharanAfrica and closer collaboration with field staff of IBPGR’s regional groups. One Germplasm Officer posted at headquarters could coordinate germplasm collection, characterization conservation and improvement activities in collaboration with the proposed global consortium of research institutions. This would also release more funds for the Consortium’s activities. Similarly, most of the training could be done in partnerships with the Consortium members. Recommendations TAC recommends that, in 1998, INIBAP - by then a programme entity operating under the umbrella of IBPGRIPGRI - be assigneda resource envelope of US$ 1.8 million (in 1992 dollars), equivalent to 86 % of the indicative resource envelope assigned, in March 1992, to INIBAP as an autonomous institution. In view of the CGIAR decision at MTM’93 to integrate INIBAP within the administrative structure of IBPGR/IPGRI, TAC’s recommendation on INIBAP’s allocation refers to INIBAP’s programme and not the INIBAP institution. TAC agrees with the CGIAR decision to maintain the level of resources allocated to banana and plantain at current levels. It notes, Annex 4 - page 20 however, that savings of some US$ 300,000 could ItaSOMbly be expected from the proposed integration of INIBAP and IBPGRIIPGRI, mainly through pooling of resources for institution building, information, documentation and communications, and a net saving in total cost of administration and governance. TAC notes further the likelihood that the Montpellier facilities will be retained as a m.ajor sub-station of IBPGRDPGRI without compromising the priority accorded to the B,ananaand Plantain Programme. TAC does not recommend changes in the allocation of core resources to banana and plantain research at the US$ 280 million vector. For.1998, INIBAP projects complementary funding of US$ 800,000 which,by that time, wih concern the INIBAP programme entity. For 1994, TAC recommends core funding of the INIBAP programme in the amount of US$ 1.7 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 1.9 million in current values. Together with complementary funds projected at US$O.9 million, INIBAP total funding in 1994 would amount to US$2.7 million. Evaluation On the basis of the IRRI MTP proposal, additional information provided by IRRI and the recent Strategy Statement on Rice Research in the CGIAR, TAC considered that the amount of resources tentatively assignedto IRRI in March 1992 should be revised upwards. IRRI is addressing issuesof very high priority to the CGIAR with a focus on upstream and strategic research, has proven capacity to undertake research on these issues effectively and has a well-argued and transparent approach to priority setting. IRRI’s programmes provide a good example of how sustainability issuesand research on resource management can be incorporated in crop improvement efforts. TAC was pleased with IRRI’s responseto the issuesraised by TAC in its interim commentary and found IRRI’s arguments to be persuasive. The CGIAR Strategy Statement on Rice Research recommends that much greater weight should be given to the priority of rice research in Asia and IRRI’s proposed activities correspond to the priorities identified by TAC. TAC considers that IRRI’s ResearchProgramme is of a highly strategic character and provides major potential for breakthroughs. Past performance of the Institute has been excellent, and IRRI has a superb record. in obtaining farm level impact. The contributions of IRRI in increasing the production of rice throughout the developing world, but particularly in Asia, are impressive. The recent External Review considered IRRI to be a healthy institution, effectively led by a dynamic managementteam. The Institute has downsized considerably during the period of the previous MTP. TAC commends IRRI for its effective responseto ,theneeds for adjustment. IRRI has effective mechanisms for collaboration with national programmes and other institutions. TAC is pleased about the rapid progress made by IRRI and ICRISAT in developing joint proposals for an ecoregional approach to research in different agroecological zones of Asia. Annex 4 - page 21 Recommendations In view of the recent Strategy Statementon Rice Research in the CGIAR, the recognition that IRRI is addressing issuesof very high priority to the CGIAR with a focus on upstream and strategic research, the record of IRRI and its institutional health, TAC considers that the amount of resources tentatively assignedto IRRI in March 1992 should be revised upwards. Consequently, TAC recommends that IRRI be assigned core resources in 1998 in the amount of US$29.4 million (in 1992 dollars), which is equivalent to 114% of the indicative base resource envelope. TAC expects IRRI, however, to include within this level of resources all five mega projects presented in’the base MTP proposal, as well as the remaining expansionspresented in the 110% scenario. IRRI has also been identified as the convening centre for a Systemwide ecoregional programme for the warm humid and sub-humid tropics and subtropics in Asia, particularly through its upland farming systemsconsortium. TAC recommends core funding in the amount of US$700,000 for this Systemwide initiative. In addition, the CIMMYT-IRRI rice-wheat cropping systemsprogramme will provide components of the Systemwide ecoregional programme for the warm arid and semi-arid tropics and subtropics in Asia, for which ICRISAT is the convening centre. At the US$280 million vector, TAC recommends that additional US$200,000 be allocated to this Systemwide initiative. For 1998, IRRI projects complementary funding of US$ 9.8 million (in 1992 values), representing 33% of its recommendedcore funding. For 1994, TAC recommends core funds for IRRI of US$25.5 million in 1992 dollars, or US$27.6 million in current values. Together with complementary funds projected at US$ 16.8 million, IRRI’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US!§ 44.4 million. Evaluation The MTP proposal outlines the evolution of programme priorities and resource allocations consistent with current and projected financial constraints and the main strategic directions of ISNAR. On the basis of the additional information provided by ISNAR in response to the interim commentary on the MTP proposal and to comments from the CGIAR, TAC considers that the MTP proposal adequately reflects ISNAR’s strategy for the 1990s and the recommendationsof the 1991 External Review. The priorities among programmes and services, as well as the relative allocation of resources by region, appear to be appropriate. The allocation of resources among programmes reflect ISNAR’s desired strategic balance between work on research policy and systems structure, scientific programme management, and managementof the imtitutio~l environment. TAC notes that at the 110% budget level, ISNAR has projected an increase in the share of resources allocated for research policy, which it could not do at the 100% scenario without reducing resources below critical mass in other areas. Annex 4 - page 22 Most of ISNAR’s work is geared towards the production of international public goods. In this regard, TAC commends ISNAR’s successfultrack record in securing complementary funds for core activities. TAC notes and concurs with the rationale used by ISNAR for classifying all of its activities as core, given the nature of ISNAR’s mandate as a research-basedservice, while securing complementary funding to contribute to their implementation. TAC considers that the priority to be assignedto institution building activities had already been adequately reflected in the tentative planning envelope assigned to ISNAR. ISNAR is institutionally healthy and has excellent collaborative arrangements with national programmes, CGIAR centres, ,andother relevant partner institutes. Recommendations TAC recommends that, for 1998, ISNAR be assignedcore resources in the amount of US$ 6.8 million (in 1992 dollars), equivalent to 100% of the indicative base envelope. TAC saw no compelling reasons :for revising ISNAR’s resource envelope at the US$270 million vector. TAC recognizes that strengthening of national programmes remains a high priority. It seesan urgent need for a strong research base at ISNAR to facilitate a better understanding of the total context in which agricultural research operates, to support the services provided by ISNAR, to evaluate the impact of ISNAR’s services, and to develop and refine new concepts and methodologies aimed at enhancing the quality of judgement by research managers. Therefore, at the US$ 280 million vector, TAC recommends an increase of US$ 1.0 million in ISNAR’s core funding to enable the Centre to develop a more comprehensive research programme. Research should be strengthened on the strategic aspectsof ISNAR’s institutional building activities, particularly the role of national programmes in national government policy formulation and decision making for agricultural research and development. This would complement ISNAR’s existing research on the operational aspectsof the organization and management of national programmes. For 1998, ISNAR projects complementary funding of US$ 3.1 million (in 1992 dollars), representing 46% of its recommended core funding at the US$270 million vector. For 1994, TAC recommends core fimds for ISNAR of US$6.1 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 6.6 million in current values. Together with complementary funds projected at US$ 3.4 million, ISNAR’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 9.9 million. WARDA Evaluation WARDA’s MTR proposal was transparent and well structured, responding innovatively to the major challenges against a background of severe financial difficulties. WARDA incorporated sustainability concerns into its current strategy, and adopted a farming systems approach to research with a strong ecosystemfocus. Thus, the priority given to research in the Continuum and in tlhe Sahel was based on the needs and Annex 4 - page 23 opportunities for increased productivity and sustainability of its cropping systems, and not for rice only. TAC considered that WARDA’s programme is forward looking and innovative. The programme is pragmatic in its mode of operation, given the severe fuzancial difficulties faced by the Centre. WARDA’s programme holds out prospects of a significant impact within a reasonable time horizon. WARDA has an effective partnership with national programmes through an innovative model based on regional working groups and task forces. It has also developed an ‘open centre’ concept of cooperation with other international organizations and advanced institutions. The two mechanismsare capable of amplifying the scope of WARDA’s programmes and maximizing the effectiveness of its resources. The location of WARDA at M’be allows the Centre to serve effectively both the francophone and the anglophone nations, and provide accessto a range of rice growing environments. On the basis of the recent Strategy Statementon Rice Research in the CGIAR, TAC considered that the tentative envelope assignedto WARDA should remain unchanged. While this level of funding could not be justified on the basis of rice research alone, it takes into account the minimum level of resources required for a viable institution. It also recognizes the importance of research on rice-based farming systems in West Africa, and would allow WARDA to continue to play a major role in conducting research on the sustainability of important rice-based farming systems. Both TAC and WARDA have responded to the Group’s wish to help WARDA to transform itself into a well-managed institute doing research of high quality. The report of the External Review Panel confirmed that this has been achieved. Recommendations TAC recommends that WARDA be assigned in 1998 core resources in the amount of US$5.8 million (in 1992 values), which is equivalent to 100% of the tentative envelope. TAC expects WARDA to play a major role in conducting research on the sustainability of important rice-based farming systems in West Africa. TAC would also encourage WARDA to seek a greater share of its funds from member states. TAC considers that the complementarities between WARDA and IITA in their work on inland valleys be enhancedthrough the Systemwide ecoregional programme for the warm humid and sub-humid tropics for sub-SaharanAfrica for which IITA has been identified as the convening centre. In this Systemwide initiative, WARDA would have a lead role in the inland valley component within the framework of a consortium arrangement with IITA. Within the US$270 million vector, TAC recommends that US$ 500,000 be made available for planning and organizing a Systemwide ecoregional programme for the warm humid and sub-humid tropics in sub-SaharanAfrica of which an appropriate portion should be assignedto WARDA within the context of the consortium arrangement on inland valleys. Under the US$280 million vector, WARDA would benefit from funds recommended for the proposed Systemwide fisheries initiative which will allow the Amex 4 - page 24 integration of fisheries research into ecoregional initiatives, with particular reference to the inland valleys of West Africa. For 1998, WARDA projects complementary funding of US!! 3.6 million (in 1992 values), representing 62 % of its recommended core funding for that year. For 1994, TAC recommends core funds for WARDA of US$5.1 million in 1992 dollars, or US$ 5.5 million in current values.. Together with complementary funds projected at US$4.8 million, WARDA’s total funding in 1994 would amount to US$ 10.2 million.