Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 1825 K Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 334-8021 Cable Address—INTBAFRAD FROM: The CGIAR and TAC Secretariats June 17, 1986 1987 CGIAR Resource Allocation Process TAC Review of 1987 Program and Budget Proposals and Funding Requests of CGIAR Centers Cali, Colombia June 23-27, 1986 Analysis of the Proposals Distribution: TAC Members Center Directors Observers at TAC Meeting Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433. U.S.A. Office Location: 1825 K Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 334-8021 Cable Address—INTBAFRAD DRAFT From: The CG Secretariat June 17, 1986 Financial Matters Summary: This circular summarizes CG finances, including contributions received from CGIAR donors in 1985 and those projected for 1986. It also covers the financial planning assumptions for preparation of 1987 center funding requests. 1985 Outcome 1. Calendar 1985 is the first year in which CG funding declined. Core funding provided by CGIAR donors in 1985 is expected to total an estimated $170 million, some $3 million or 2% lower than in 1984. The continuing strength of the US dollar vis-a-vis other currencies until late 1985, coupled with the unexpected sharp decline in contributions from Saudi Arabia, IFAD and the OPEC Fund, appear to have been- major factors in the decline. 2. The secretariat anticipated the decline since early 1985 and kept the centers informed. Consequently, centers appear to have dealt with this level of funding without major dislocations in their research efforts. Most centers operated at about 96% of their approved programs. Maximum World Bank contributions were required in the cases of five centers — ICARDA, IFPRI, ILCA, ISNAR and WARDA — to bridge the gap between actual funding and the systemwide level of funding. As reported elsewhere, WARDA, which was financed well below this level, was able to mount a viable revised program at the reduced level. While not solely related to the funding shortage, a major problem arose at IITA, which ended 1985 with a deficit of $3 million. 3. The stabilization mechanism established in 1984 continued to function in 1985. The mechanism guarantees the budget US dollar exchange rates on donor contributions and also finances cost increases above budget inflation assumptions. In 1985 the mechanism compensated adverse price swings for ICARDA and IRRI and, to a smaller extent, for ILCA and ICRISAT. CIMMYT paid back into the fund on account of lower cost increases resulting from the rapid devaluation of the mexican peso late in the year. In most cases exchange losses, because of a stronger dollar, were also compensated. 4. Starting from a balance of $3.5 million at the end of 1984, the fund increased to a level of $8.8 million after a 1985 World Bank contribution of $4.4 million and interest earned of $0.9 million during 1985. In total, the mechanism paid out $0.7 million for inflation claims and $1.2 million for exchange losses. The balance at the end of 1985 was $6.9 million. - 2 1986 Prospects v 5. Based on actual donor pledges and informal estimates, the CGIAR secretariat projected availability of funds at $182-185 million in November 1985. After a contribution by the World Bank of $5 million to the stabilization mechanism, this would finance about 96% of most center programs approved at an aggregate level of $190 million. A maximum World Bank contribution is likely to be required in the cases of four centers — ICARDA, IFPRI, ILCA and WARDA — where contributions from donors other than the World Bank continue to lag . 6. At present, funding (November 1985 exchange rates) appears to be about $184 million. This year, most donors communicated their pledges to the secretariat relatively early so that the estimate appears firm. Because the US dollar has declined significantly in the past several months, the dollar value of these contributions has increased. The secretariat projects gains in the neighborhood of $4 million so that actual funding would be $188 million. 7. The operating principle of the stabilization mechanism requires these gains to be paid into the fund unless offset by unexpected inflationary pressures requiring additional expenditures. As the members are aware, host country inflation does not necessarily parallel trends in most donor countries. This particularly appears to be the case at present in Peru. In addition, the weaker dollar is beginning to exert upward cost pressures on center expenditures/purchases in part I countries other than the US. For example, ISNAR — which spends a substantial part of its budget in the Netherlands — faces a $0.5 million reduction in its purchasing power at current exchange rates. 8. While it is not possible to accurately predict short-term trends in exchange rates and host country inflation, it is clear that the stabilization fund may have a balance of $10 million or more by end 1986. For existing purposes this may be an appropriate size for the fund. The secretariat will pursue this and related questions in the near future. 1987 Planning Assumptions 9. The 1987 center program and budget guidelines issued by the secretariat in December 1985 call for 1-2% real growth, in addition to center inflation provisions averaging 7%. Together, this would require core funding of about $200 million in 1987. 10. The secretariat now estimates 1987 funding at about $198 million. However, center inflation projections have also been reduced to 5.6%. -M Consequently, 1987 funding to the system should allow 2% real growth in center programs. - 3 (c) Presenting a short summary of the proposals with focus on programs rather than budgetary detail to facilitate the TAC review; (d) Building the 1987 proposals in discrete steps from the baseline up to the requested level with detail shown in a single list of changes ; (e) Focussing the review process on recommending a single feasible set of high priority center activities for CG funding with TAC approval of additional activities, as necessary, for funding from other sources; (f) Using a simple decision tool to allow TAC to reach a consensus on merits of individual submissions; Funding Recommendations and TAC Decision Process: Revisiting the 1986 Process 7. TAC recommends individual center proposals in the context of overall priorities across the CGIAR system. TAC deliberations on strategy provide some guidance on this. However, such guidance does not and should not govern the detailed individual judgements to be made in the annual allocation process. Rather, based on a review of written and oral presenta­ tions by centers of their programs and financing needs, TAC generates a "consensus view" out of the individual views and judgements of TAC members. 8. In the past this consensus has been achieved through the collective memory of individual participants and the working group format. In June 1985, tb strengthen this decision-making mechanism, TAC initiated its review process by determining in broad terms what program areas need particular emphasis in 1986. This was done prior to the formal review of individual center programs and budgets and subsequently revisited several times as centers presented their programs and TAC met in working groups. 9. TAC pragmatically used a simple ranking system by which activities/ programs were given priority rankings of one through three (e.g., A should be emphasized, B should be maintained and C should be de-emphasized). This was done iteratively with several full TAC meetings reviewing the work done by the working groups. This resulted in a consensus on relative ranking across the system facilitating the review of individual submissions. The center material, in turn, was also reviewed in the same fashion. This process made it easier for TAC to choose between competing demands with an appropriate amount of deliberation within a tight timeframe. In the final step, keeping in mind the financial advice provided by the secretariat both at the system- wide and center levels, TAC chose to recommend priority 1 and 2 for CG funding while approving some elements of priority 3 if additional funding was avail ab le. Organization of Process 10. The 1987 TAC review is proposed to be conducted using the same format of full TAC meeting and working group discussions along with individual presentations by the center directors. - 4 11. The review will take place during the week of the June 22 1986. Joint sessions are scheduled with the center directors at the beginning and the end of the week, The detailed agenda provided before the meeting will show the specific sessions for this topic. Description of Materials 12. Each TAC member will be provided with a folder containing all the materials relevant to the review process, A list of materials in the folder is as follows: - 1987 Budget Guidance document; - Executive summaries of all center proposals; - Summary tabular material showing time series on funding, requirements, expenditures, senior staffyears and other relevant data; - Issues notes/summaries prepared by the secretariats. 13. The TAC member assigned to a center and the backup will also be provided with the detailed P&B documents for their centers. In addition copies will be available at the meeting. Key Financial Information 1985 Outcome: Approved requirements : $174-186 million Estimated funding: $170.6 million Of which: Stabilization Mechanism $4.7 million 1986 Plan: Approved requirements : $190 million Estimated funding: $182-185 million Of which: Stabilization Mechanism $5 million 1987 Guidelines: Starting point for center proposals: $177 million Stabilization Mechanism: $5 million Total: $182 million Estimated system funding (10% growth): $200 million Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street. N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 1825 K StreeU-N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 334-8021 Cable Address—INTBAFRAD FROM: The CGIAR and TAC Secretariats March 14, 1986 1987 Program and Budget Review Process CIAT at Cali, Colombia June 22-27 , 1986 Introduction 1. As part of the oversight responsibility for ensuring continued excellence of research conducted by the CGIAR centers, TAC has reviewed center programs from its inception.^/ While the structure of the review process has remained the same for the past several years, the process has been refined almost continuously as the participants gain more experience. In particular the process used in June 1985 incorporated some simple proce­ dural changes which appear to have improved the exercise. Since October 1985 a subcommittee of TAC has been actively engaged in defining a new process prompted by suggestions made in the study report, "Budgeting, Financial Management and Reporting in the CGIAR" being presented to the Group in Ottawa. A progress report on the new process for further discussion and decision is provided separately. 2. At the October 1985 meeting TAC discussed a paper from the CG secretariat on conducting this year's process and agreed to continue the process used in June 1985. This paper revisits the process for the informa­ tion of TAC. 3. Background detail on various aspects of the process is available in papers circulated earlier including the 1987 resource allocation guide­ lines. Key financial figures are provided at the end of this note. To provide a perspective, paragraph 4 below describes the overall resource allocation cycle. Paragraphs 5 through 11 discuss the specific objectives and the conduct of the 1987 review process. Paragraphs 12 and 13 describe the review materials being made available for TAC. fJ The second CGIAR review assigned a specific role of annually reviewing the center programs and budgets to TAC and the CGIAR secretariat as part of an overall recommendation to strengthen the procedures for the review of center programs and budgets. Consequently, the Group specifically requested TAC to amend the 1982 center budgets in view of a large gap between requests and funding. This was accomplished at the March 1982 TAC meeting. Since then TAC has annually reviewed and recommended to the Group center programs for funding. Distribution: TAC Members TAC Secretariat Center Directors 2 1987 Resource Allocation Cycle 4. The resource allocation cycle has the following phases: (a) Issuance of guidelines by the CG secretariat for preparing the budgets (December). (b) TAC discussion of the upcoming review (March). (c) Preparation of program and budget proposals by center management for review by center boards (May). (d) Submission of draft proposals to the secretariats and review by TAC and the CG secretariat (May-June). (Summary documentation prepared by the secretariats.) (e) Recommendation by TAC of individual center programs and funding requirements (June). (f) Submission of 1987 proposals and funding requirements to the Group (July-September). (g) Circulation of commentaries on individual center programs and summary of TAC recommendations to the Group by the CG secretariat (July-September). (h) Approval by the Group of the proposals (November). (i) Individual donor decisions on funding of individual centers (November onwards). Objective of the Review Process 5. The process aims to produce a statement recommending funds for the programs of each center. This recommendation for each center is arrived at in the context of programs proposed by all of the centers, It is based on a judgement of relative scientific priorities across the system given an expected level of funding. Since the donors make pledges after the TAC review, the prioritized statements need to be built as a range to allow the system and individual centers to deal with the actual funding level. Main Features of the 1987 Process 6. The main features of the 1987 review are: (a) 1986 funding serving as the baseline for preparing the 1987 programs with no center specific upper limits for funding requests; instead, a projection of 10% growth in nominal funding serves as the systemwide constraint. (b) Presenting total programs of centers including special projects in addition to the core program. Attachment 1 Suggested Formats Table 3 Special Projects (Summary Only) 1986 Plan 1987 Proposal Staff Amount Staff Amount _____ Description_____ (state donor If known) 1. Operations Program Program/Activity Total 2. Capital Construction Equipment Others Total Attachment 1 Suggested Formats Table 2 Review List: Center (Core Only) ■ 1987 Proposal 1986 Plan ___C_h_a_n_g_e_s_ _f_r_om 1986 Funding Level Staff Amount Staff Amount Description 1986 Funding x x 1. Operations Program Pr og r am/Ac t ivi t y ;■ . : Total 2. Capital Construction Equipment Others Total 3. Addi Working Capital 1987 Funding Proposal X x Attachment 1 Suggested Formats Table lb Resource Summary: Center (Core Only) 19_8_5_ _A__c_t_u_a__l_ 1986 Plan 1987 Proposal 1988 Forecast Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Funding Outlays 1. Operations Program Program/Activity Subtotal Price Requirement Total 2. Capital Construction Equipment Others Total 3. Addi working capital Total Reqmnts.(1+2+3) Less : 4. Funds on Hand Funding Requirements Sources of Funds Core : Restricted : Capi tal : Unrestricted eWorld Bank Total Attachment 1 Suggested Formats Table la Resource Summary: Center (Core and Special Projects) 1985 Actual ___1_9_8_6__ _P_l_a_n__ 19S7 Proposal 1988 Forecast Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Staff Amount Funding Outlays 1. Operations Program Program/Activity - Core - Special Subtotal Price Requirement Total 2. Capital Construction Equipment Others Total 3. Addi working capital Total Reqmnts.(1+2+3) Less : 4. Funds on Hand Funding Requirements Sources of Funds Core : Restricted : Capital : Unrestricted :World Bank Total Special : Capital : Others Total Total Attachment 1 (Text) Suggested Formats Summary of 1987 Proposals Progress Report on Current 1986 Operational Plans 1. _R_e__s_o_u_r_c_e_s . Funding assumptions for planning the 1986 programs in relation to the actual outcome for 1985» Relevant changes in support by individual CGIAR donors in 1986 and other areas of income, Forecast of 1986 price changes. Resultant availability of resources in real terms in comparison with 1985. 2. _P_r_o_g_r_am__s . Important elements of the plan for 1986, emphasis on new initiatives discussed with TAC in June 1985. Assessment of likely results from research in 1986. Update on special projects. Areas/activities deferred on account of resource shortages: financial and/or key personnel. [Centers with major capital programs underway, including those funded as special projects, should provide a statement of progress.] 1987 Proposals 3. Resources. Funding requirements/expectations in 1987. Opera­ tional , capital and special projects. Basis for funding assumptions: core and special, comparisons with historical core funding growth, Price assumptions in 1987 in comparison with 1986. Other important resource issues, if any. [Centers expecting substantial World Bank contribution in 1987 should review historical World Bank support.] 4. Programs. Priorities in 1987 in relation with center's long-term plan and/or external review. Changes from 1986, emphasize activities phasing down as well as being, initiated. Activities being deferred beyond 1987 due to resource limitations. Special projects in 1987. Relevance to core. Impact of technical assistance activities on core. Salient features of the tabular attachment on special projects. 5. Discussion of Items on Review L_i_s_t, Activities which will need to be phased down as well as added, If relevant, priority statements for groups of items or individual items. 6. Financial Issues if any. Annex 2 Part I: CGIAR Core Funding by Center (in SM) 1986 1983 1984 1985 Current As % of Actual Actual Estimate Approvals Estimate Approvals CIAT 21.1 23.5 20.9 22.2 21.4 96% CIMMYT 17.5 20.7 19.7 22.7 21.9 96% CIP 10.1 9.7 10.1 11.3 10.9 96% IBPGR 3.6 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.5 96% ICARDA 19.7 21.0 18.2 19.2 18. 1 94% ICRISAT 20.9 21.0 19.8 21.8 21.2 97% IF PR I 3.8 4.3 4.4 5.1 4.3 84% I ITA 19.9 20.9 20.5 22.8 22.0 96% ILCA 11.8 12.6 13.6 15.3 14.4 94% ILRAD 8.0 9.3 9.1 10.8 10.4 96% IRRI 20.3 19.7 21.1 22.4 21.6 96% ISNAR 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.8 97% WARDA 2.7 2.0 2.5 2.9 2.1 72% Total 162.4 172.3 167.8 185.1 176.6 95% Stabilization 2.3 0.8 2.6 5.0 5.0 Mechanism Total 164.7 173.1 170.4 190.1 181.6 96% Part II: Comparative Price Increases by Center (in percentages) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate CIAT 6% -1% 4% 4% 4% CIMMYT -12% -5% 9% 6% 9% CIP 3% -4% 5% 5% 5% IBPGR 1% 1% 7% 7% 7% ICARDA 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% ICRISAT 1% 2% 4% 4% 4% IF PR I 5% 3% 8% 8% 8% I ITA 1% 9% 8% 8% 8% ILCA 4% 3% 9% 10% 9% ILRAD 2% -4% 6% 6% 6% IRRI 4% -1% 6% 8% 6% ISNAR 3% 1% 6% 6% 6% WARDA 6% 3% 5% 5% 9% Total 4.4% 1.2% 6.5% 6.9% 6.7% Annex 1 1987 CGIAR Resource Allocation Cycle 1985 Mid-December CGIAR secretariat issues guidelines. 1986 January-April Centers prepare proposals. March TAC discussion of the P&B review process at its meeting in Rome. April 30 Centers send summary proposals to TAC chairman and the TAC and CGIAR secretariats. Centers audited statements to donors and CGIAR secretariat. May 15 Centers send draft P&B papers to TAC chairman and the TAC and CGIAR secretariats. May Secretariats distribute center proposals to all TAC members. May-June Secretariats review proposals and circulate aggregation of proposals. June 22-July 2 TAC/Centers meet in Cali, Colombia for reviewing center proposals. July-August Centers finalize P&B documents including TAC r ecommend a tio ns. CGIAR secretariat sends summary of TAC recommendations to the Group. September 12 P&B documents dispatched by the centers to the Group and the secretariats. November 3-7 1986 International Centers Week. Late November CGIAR secretariat confirms with donors their proposed 1987 contributions. Mid-December CGIAR secretariat informs centers of likely 1987 funding. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Mailing Address: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Office Location: 1825 K Street, N.W. Telephone (Area Code 202) 334-8021 Cable Address—INTBAFRAD FROM: The Secretariat December 24, 1985 1987 Resource Allocation Process Introduction 1. This memorandum provides guidance to the centers in the preparation of their 1987 program and budget proposals for review by the TAC in June 1986 and subsequent presentation to the Group by September 1986. Annex 1 provides a detailed timetable, As agreed in October 1985, we will continue with the existing process for this cycle, Major steps are outlined below along with the funding assumptions for use by individual centers in preparation of their proposals. 2. We expect to structure a new process during the course of 1986. The first step is a joint meeting between sub-committees of TAC and of the center directors planned for January 27-28, 1986 at ISNAR. This meeting should provide the basis for additional guidance as to further steps to be taken by the centers. The secretariat will issue such guidance in early February. 1987 Core Funding Assumptions 3. Possible 1986 core funding for the CGIAR is in the range of $182-185 million. A conservative forecast of likely funding would be the lower end of the range, $182 million. Using this figure, after setting aside $5 million for the stabilization mechanism, the amount available for centers is $177 million. This translates into a systemwide average funding level of 96% of the 1986 approvals of $185 million, Individual center funding varies around this average as shown in Annex 2. The secretariat has advised individual centers as to what they can expect in 1986 on the basis of a $182 million outcome. 4. Expected 1986 core funding represents an increase of 7% over 1985 funding of $171 million matching the 1986 price requirements. For 1987 the secretariat proposes a planning figure of $200 million which projects further improvement in 1987 with a modest 2% real growth in addition to the 7% or so needed for price increases. 1987 Process 5. The two main stages in the allocation process are: (a) detailed review of the center programs and budgets by the TAC in June leading to a funding recommendation to the Group; and (b) Group consideration and approval / • • • Distribution: Center Directors Center Board Chairs TAC Chairman, Members and Secretariat - 2 of the center programs and funding in November, The draft proposals for review by the TAC are expected to have undergone internal center reviews including that by its board of trustees. TAC Review 6. TAC will review center proposals in June 1986 with a focus on programs. TAC will review these proposals individually and in context of the systemwide balance of priorities, The secretariat will review the financial assumptions and provide support to the TAC. The TAC review will result in a program and funding recommendation by center to the Group for funding by the CCIAR. The overall projected funding for 1987 and individual center funding experience will be important factors in the TAC review, However, there is no target for the TAC funding recommendation for any individual center. 7. TAC's funding recommendation will cover only high priority center activities. Within this reeemmendation TAC will not rank the individual items proposed by a center but will arrange them in relative priorities. TAC may also approve on scientific grounds other activities in addition to those included in the funding recommendation. Thus the outcome of the TAC review should guide the centers in dealing with actual funding in 1987 either lower or higher than the recommendation. 8. To facilitate the review of proposals by the TAC, we suggest that the centers follow these principles: (a) Scope. While the systemwide funding projection provides the overall funding envelope, centers should prepare proposals based on their needs keeping in mind their own past funding experience, An additional factor would be the different price increase requirements in host countries. (b) Method. The 1987 proposal should be built up in steps starting from the 1986 estimated funding level. The 1986 funding estimate is the basis for the current operational plans for centers. As such it is the most uniform point of departure for proposing programs for 1987. Each center will start with the assumption that it receives the same amount in 1987 current dollars as it expects to receive in 1986. This means a starting point lower than the real 1986 level by the expected price increase. The build up to the proposals should be in the form of a list of items for review. This list is the basis for the dialogue between TAC and the centers. It should therefore provide the details of the center's own priorities for changes from its 1986 program. It should not include items such as price increases, across-the-board cuts/additions on salary increases which are items of management discretion. (c) Coverage. Although the list just discussed will be the main focus in June, the TAC review is not limited to the list. Centers should expect selective discussions of the total effort devoted to the activity associated with an item on the list. - 3 In addition, TAC will look at the main elements of the core programs in relation to special project activities, especially at those core-like activities funded as special projects and at the impact of country assistance activities on core programs, The discussion of special projects should be integrated with the core program material so as to highlight these issues. (d) Documentation. Centers should provide a short summary of the draft proposals to TAC stating the program rationale and summary budgetary information. This complements the more detailed program and budget document by making the task of reviewing all thirteen proposals manageable for individual TAC members. Additional tabular material on special projects may be needed. Overall financial information should include both core plus special projects and core alone. Suggested formats for the summary and tables are found in Attachment 1. The P&B document should continue to use the budgeting and accounting guidelines last issued in December 1983. Group Review and Approval 9. The center proposals incorporating the TAC recommendations will be presented to the Group in a single document prepared by the secretariat in cooperation with the centers and the TAC. This supplements the individual P&B documents presented by the centers. The Group will review and decide' on these proposals at the ICW86 and the donors encouraged to make their allocations by the end of 1986. Commentaries 10. In order not to burden the TAC review process with many documents we propose to separate the preparation of commentaries to the CGIAR on center program and budget proposals from the review. The secretariat will invite center contributions to the secretariat commentaries at a later date. The secretariat worked together with the centers to prepare these last year and would hope to do for this year also. Distribution and Other Arrangements 11. The summary should be sent to the TAC chairman and both secretariats by end of April 1986. The secretariats will undertake distribution to the TAC. Draft P&B documents should also be sent as early as possible but no later than May 15, 1986. We suggest that each center send a set directly to the TAC chairman and their TAC liaison scientists. 12. We encourage centers to send us advance copies of the material for timely consolidation across all centers. We hope to circulate a consolidated package to the TAC and the centers themselves prior to the meeting. Timely receipt of these materials is the key for an effective dialogue in June. Annex I I I. Page 2 Aggregation of CGIAR Total Research Expenditures (1983-1987) (In US$ mill Ions) Research Program Detail Operational Actua I s Plans Proposa I s 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Cereals Ma ize (Core) 4.60 5.18 5.92 6.56 7.01 (Special) .39 .67 1.31 1.65 1.73 Ml 1 I et (Core) 2.08 2.25 2.11 1.73 1.95 Rice (Core) 12.40 12.31 12.76 13.27 16.21 (Special) 5.21 5.47 6.55 5.25 1.04 Sorghum ( Core) 2.35 1.75 1.57 2.06 2.66 (Special) .14 .27 .11 .00 .00 Wheat and Barley (Core) 6.79 7.54 7.28 7.40 7.98 (Special ) .00 .20 1.17 1.73 1.72 Sub tota I (Core) 28.22 29.03 29.64 31.02 35.81 ( Spec I a I ) 5.74 6.61 9.14 8.63 4.49 Food Legumes Beans (Core) 2.46 2.78 2.63 2.95 3.22 (Special) 1.94 1.77 .93 2.65 3.20 Food Legumes (Core) 4.18 4.77 4.55 5.33 5.75 (Spec lai) .97 .88 1.85 1.31 .77 Groundnut (Core) 1.10 1.26 1.28 1.91 2.00 Subtotal ( Core) 7.74 8.81 8.46 10.19 10.97 (Special ) 2.91 2.65 2.78 3.96 3.97 Food Pol Icy Pol Icy (Core) 2.32 2.53 2.92 3.30 3.86 (Spec lai) .55 .67 1.55 1.86 1.46 Livestock Di seases (Core) 3.69 4.02 3.60 3.84 5.15 ( Spec lai) .20 .24 .35 ■ .51 .41 Production (Core) 8.87 9.89 11.26 11.84 13.21 (Spec lai) .20 .41 .44 .86 .61 Subtotal (Core) 12.56 13.91 14.86 15.68 18.36 (Special) .40 .65 .79 1.37 1.02 Natural Resources Farming Systems (Core) 5.85 7.24 6.72 7.86 8.95 (Spec la I ) 1.41 1.85 1.99 .99 .77 Genetic Resources (Core) 4.05 3.95 3.53 4.35 5.15 (Spec I a I ) .16 .37 .34 .28 .18 Subtotal (Core) 9.90 11.19 10.25 12.21 14.10 (Special) 1.57 2.22 2.33 1.27 .95 Roots and Tubers Potatoes (Core) 3.97 4.44 4.70 5.48 5.23 (Special) .56 .85 .85 1.96 1.65 Roots and Tubers (Core) 3.08 3.11 3.26 3.23 4.51 (Special) 1.27 1.44 3.38 6.35 5.02 Subtotal ( Core) 7.05 7.55 7.96 8.71 9.74 (Special) 1.83 2.29 4.23 8.31 6.67 Mu Iti-program (Special) .00 .00 2.69 4.65 1.57 i Total Core Research 67.79 73.02 74.09 81.11 92.84 Total Special Research 13.00 15.09 23.51 30.05 20.13 Total Research 80.79 88.11 97.60 111.16 112.97 Annex I I I Page 1 Aggregation of CGIAR Total Operational Expenditures (1983-1987) ( in US$ mill ions) OperationaI Actuals Plans Proposa Is 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Research Cereals (Core) 28.22 29.03 29.64 31.02 35.81 (Special) 5.74 6.61 9.14 8.63 4.49 Food Legumes (Core) 7.74 8.81 8.46 10.19 10.97 (Spec I a I ) 2.91 2.65 2.78 3.96 3.97 Food Po I Icy (Core) 2.32 2.53 2.92 3.30 3.86 (Spec lai) .55 .67 1.55 1.86 1.46 Livestock (Core) 12.56 13.91 14.86 15.68 18.36 (Spec la I) .40 .65 .79 1.37 1.02 Natural Resources (Core) 9.90 11.19 10.25 12.21 14.10 (Spec I a I ) 1.57 2.22 2.33 1.27 .95 Roots and Tubers (Core) 7.05 7.55 7.96 8.71 9.74 ( Spec I a I ) 1.83 2.29 4.23 8.31 6.67 Multi-program (Special) .00 .00 2.69 4.65 1.57 Sub tota 1 (Core) 67.79 73.02 74.09 81.11 92.84 Sub tota 1 (Spec lai) 13.00 15.09 23.51 30.05 20.13 Strengthening NARs Info/Comm/Lib/Doe (Core) 8.11 9.08 10.17 11.23 12.00 (Special) .03 .13 • .37 ■ .65 .55 Institution Building (Core) 3.70 3.78 . 5.82 7.94 8.99 (Special) 8.25 10.50 8.60 11.48 8.27 Training/Conference (Core) 11.06 11.69 11.38 12.93 15.05 (Special) 2.03 2.33 2.00 2.25 1.65 Subtotal (Core) 22.87 24.55 27.37 32.10 36.04 Sub tota I (Spec lai) 10.31 12.96 10.97 14.38 10.47 Research Support Research Support (Core) 18.01 19.00 19.69 20.49 23.58 (Special) .36 .37 .71 .98 1.44 Management Adml n I stratlon (Core) 17.35 17.77 17.72 20.00 21.70 (Spec la I ) .08 .08 3.55 5.56 2.51 General Operations (Core) 24.88 23.55 24.34 24.89 25.77 (Specia I ) .00 .00 .18 .18 .20 Subtotal (Core) 42.23 41.40 45.79 52.76 54.91 Subtotal (Special) .08 .08 1.04 1.09 1.14 Total Core 150.90 157.89 163.21 178.59 199.93 Total Special 23.75 28.50 36.23 46.50 33.18 Total Operational Expenditures 174.65 186.39 194.44 225.09 233.11 Annex I I I Page 3b Operational ActuaIs Plans Proposals 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Natural Resources Farming Systems (Special) CIAT .00 .11 .00 .00 .00 ( Special ) CIMMYT .25 .39 .00 .00 .00 (Core) I CARDA 1.69 1.63 1.99 2.04 2.10 (Special ) I CARDA .08 .08 .20 .13 .00 (Core) ICR I SAT 1.80 2.71 2.23 2.46 2.88 (Special) ICR I SAT .30 .10 .36 .00 .00 (Core) I ITA 2.15 2.57 2.14 2.99 3.67 (Special ) I ITA .78 1.17 1.43 .86 .77 (Core) IRRI .21 .33 .36 .37 .30 Genetic Resources (Core) CIAT .36 .46 .29 .30 .38 (Special) CIAT .02 .09 .07 .05 .03 (Spec lai) CIMMYT .00 .08 .00 .00 .00 ! (Core) IBPGR 2.86 2.50 2.09 2.56 2.96 (Special) IBPGR .00 .10 .25 .14 .15 (Core) I CARDA .23 .36 .50 .86 1.02 (Special ) I CARDA .02 .02 .00 .08 .00 (Core) ICRISAT .39 .36 .38 .32 .41 (Special) ICR I SAT .03 .00 .00 .00 .00 • (Special) I ITA .04 .01 .00 .00 .00 (Special) I LCA .00 .01 .02 .01 .00 (Core) IRRI .21 .27 .27 .31 .38 • (Special ) IRRI .05 .06 .00 .00 .00 Roots and Tubers Potatoes ( Core) CIP 3.97 4.44 4.70 5.48 5.23 (Special ) CIP .56 .85 .85 1.96 1.65 Roots and Tubers (Core) CIAT 1.90 1.91 1.93 1.93 2.19 (Special) CIAT .09 .06 .19 .59 .36 ( Core) CIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .82 (Core) I ITA 1.18 1.20 1.33 1.30 1.50 (Specia I ) I ITA 1.18 1.38 3.19 5.76 4.66 Multi-program (Special ) I ITA .00 .00 2.69 4.65 1.57 Total Core Research 67.79 73.02 74.09 81.11 92.84 Total Special Research 13.00 15.09 23.51 30.05 20.13 Total Research 80.79 88.11 97.60 111.16 112.97 ; .... .... - - .... - 'f *•"- *• "' .. ... .. Annex I I I Page 3a CGIAR Total Research Expenditures by Center (1985-1987) ( In US$ m 11 I Ions) OperatIona I ActuaIs Plans Proposa I s 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Cereals Mai ze ( Core) CIMMYT 3.70 4.28 4.90 5.46 5.83 (Special) CIMMYT .04 .36 1.08 1.48 1.61 ( Core) I ITA .90 .90 1.02 1.10 1.18 (Special) I ITA .35 .31 .23 .17 .12 Millet (Core) ICR I SAT 2.08 2.25 2.11 1.73 1.95Ri ce (Core) Cl AT .87 .89 .99 1.06 1.24 (Special) C I AT .00 .00 .17 .30 .29 (Core) I ITA .90 .90 1.05 1.14 1.23 (Special ) I ITA .00 .00 .26 .03 .00 (Core) IRRI 9.66 9.68 10.06 9.90 10.97 (Spec la I ) IRRI 1.29 1.71 2.46 1.32 .75 (Core) WARDA .97 .84 .66 1.17 2.77 (Special ) WAR DA 3.92 3.76 3.66 3.60 .00 Sorghum (Special) CIMMYT .14 .27 .00 .00 .00 ( Core) ICR I SAT 2.35 1.75 1.57 2.06 2.66 (Special) ICR I SAT .00 .00 .11 .00 .00 Wheat and Barley (Core) CIMMYT 5.28 5.85 5.34 5.20 5.56 ■(Special) C IMMYT .00 .14 1.08 1.59 1.72 (Core) I CARDA 1.51 1.69 1.94 2.20 2.42 (Special) I CARDA .00 .06 .09 .14 .00 Food Legumes Beans (Core) CI AT 2.46 2.78 2.63 2.95 3.22 (Specia I ) C I AT .54 .52 .93 2.65 3.20 (Special) ICARDA 1.40 1.25 .00 .00 .00 Food Legumes (Core) I CARDA 1.56 1.66 1.67 2.33 2.63 (Special ) I CARDA .00 .00 1.17 .26 .22 ( Core) ICR I SAT 1.33 1.24 1.30 1.60 1.61 (Special) ICR I SAT .07 .08 .00 .00 .00 (Core) I ITA 1.29 1.87 1.58 1.40 1.51 (Special) I ITA .90 .80 .68 1.05 .55 Groundnut (Core) ICR I SAT 1.10 1.26 1.28 1.91 2.00 Food Pol icy Pol Icy (Core) IFPRI 2.32 2.53 2.92 3.30 3.86 (Special) IFPRI .55 .67 1.55 1.86 1.46 Livestock Di seases (Core) I LCA .25 .42 .00 .00 .00 ( Core) I LRAD 3.44 3.60 3.60 3.84 5.15 (Special) ILRAD .20 .24 .35 .51 .41 Product Ion ( Core) Cl AT 2.96 3.23 3.13 3.29 3.57 (Special) CIAT .00 .00 .14 .18 .11 (Core) I CARDA .69 1.03 1.45 1.76 1.81 (Special) I CARDA .00 .00 .01 .05 .05 (Core) I LCA 5.22 5.63 6.68 6.79 7.83 (Special) I LCA .20 .41 .29 .63 .45 /. • • - - ! .. . Annex I I I Page 4 CGIAR Total Non-Research ExpendItures by Center ( 1983-1987) (in US$ mill Ions) Strengthening NARs Operational ActuaIs Plans Proposa Is 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 I n fo/Comm/L Ib/Doc Cl AT (Core) 1.39 1.48 CI AT 1.34 1.36 1.48(Spec la I ) .00 .00 .13 .23CIMMYT (Core) .13.66 .79 .91 .88 .94CIMMYT (Special) .02 .01 .08 .08 .09CIP (Core) .39 .42 .56 .72 .61 IBPGR (Core) .09 .11 .23 .19 .23I CARDA (Core) .71 .77 .85 1.00 1.03ICARDA (Special) .01 .02 .02 ICR I .03 .00SAT (Core) .66 .68 .72 ICR I SAT 1.11 1.28(Special) .00 .01 .00 .00 .00IFPRI (Core) .45 .45 .00 .00 .00 I ITA ( Core) .92 1.23 1.43 1.22 1.31I LCA (Core) .96 1.09 1.95 2.33 2.57I LCA (Special) .00 .02 .02 .00 .00ILRAD (Core) .34 .31 .37 .39 .42 IRRI (Core) 1.07 1.22 1.15 1.20 1.25IRR I (Special) .00 .03 .02 .19 .21 ISNAR (Core) .32 .40 .54 .59 .64ISNAR (Special) .00 .04 .10 .12 .12WARDA (Core) .15 .13 .12 .24 .24 Institution Building CIAT (Special) .27 .25 .00 CIMMYT (Special) .00 .001.36 2.04 .00 .00 .00CIP ( Core) .00 .00 .00 .26 .28CIP (Special) .15 .00 .00 .00 .00IBPGR (Core) .00 .00 .81 .89 .87ICARDA (Core) .27 . .42 .45 .62 .74 ICARDA (Special) .05 .00 .58 1.30 1.37 ICR I SAT (Special) 1.10 1.63 ' 2.80 6.15 4.16IFPRI (Specia I) .38 .48 .00 .00 .00I ITA (Special) 2.39 2.62 .00 .00 .00I LCA (Core) .00 .00 .67 I LCA (Special) .73 .95.39 .39 .81 IRRI .86 .90(Core) 1.71 1.71 1.90 2.55 2.49IRRI (Special) 1.74 2.47 4.06 2.76 1.43ISNAR (Core) 1.72 1.65 1.99 2.89 3.66ISNAR (Special) .42 .62 .35 .41 .41 Training/Conterenee CIAT (Core) 1.04 1.59 1.35 1.40 1.45CIAT (Special) .00 .00 .05 .05 .02 CIMMYT (Core) 2.48 2.72 3.00 3.19 3.61 CIMMYT (Special) .42 .32 .73 .98 .98 CIP (Core) 1.09 .85 .70 .94 1.06 CIP ( Spec ia I ) .09 .00 .00 .00 .00 IBPGR (Core) .65 .58 .61 .56 .61ICARDA (Core) .32 .38 .40 .56 .66 ICARDA (Special) .04 .05 ICRISAT .00 .00 .00(Core) .79 .52 .95 1.58 1.17ICRISAT (Special) .02 .02 I FPR I .00( .00 .00Core) .11 .15 .00 .00 .00I FPR I (Special) .21 .33 .00 .00 .00I ITA (Core) .48 .16 .44 .38 .74I ITA (Special) .37 .56 .30 .62 .45I LCA ( Core) .66 .92 .00 .00 .00I LCA (Special) .09 .12 .01 .00 .00ILRAD ( Core) .70 .69 .75 .93 1.01 IRRI (Core) 2.26 2.75 2.67 2.55 3.75IRRI ( Spec lai) .50 .63 .49 .40 .00 ISNAR (Core) .35 .26 .40 .69 .84 ISNAR (Special) .29 .30 .42 .20 .20 WARDA (Core) .13 .12 .11 .15 .15 Total Core 22.87 24.55 27.37Total Special 32.10 36.0410.31 12.96 10.97 14.38 10.47 Total Non-Research 33.18 37.51 38.34 46.48 46.51 » - Annex I I Page 4 CGIAR Core Non-Research Expenditures by Centers (1983-1987) (in US$ mill ions) OperatIona I ActuaIs Plans Proposa Is 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Strengthening NARs Info/Comm/LIb/Doc Cl AT 1.39 1.48 1.34 1.36 1.48 CIMMYT .66 .79 .91 .88 .94 CIP .39 .42 .56 .72 .61 IBPGR .09 .11 .23 .19 .23 I CARDA .71 .77 .85 1.00 1.03 ICR I SAT .66 .68 .72 1.11 1.28 IFPRI .45 .45 .00 .00 .00 I ITA .92 1.23 1.43 1.22 1.31 I LCA .96 1.09 1.95 2.33 2.57 ILRAD .34 .31 .37 .39 .42 IRRI 1.07 1.22 1.15 1.20 1.25 ISNAR .32 .40 .54 .59 .64 WARDA .15 .13 .12 .24 .24 Institution BuI Iding CIP .00 .00 .00 .26 .28 IBPGR .00 .00 .81 .89 .87 I CARDA .27 .42 .45 .62 .74 I LCA .00 .00 .67 .73 .95 IRRI 1.71 1.71 1.90 2.55 2.49 ISNAR 1.72 1.65 1.99 2.89 3.66 Train 1ng/Conferenee CIAT 1.04 1.59 1.35 1.40 1.45 CIMMYT 2.48 2.72 3.00 3.19 3.61 CIP 1.09 .85 .70 .94 1.06 IBPGR .65 .58 .61 .56 .61 I CARDA .32 .38 .40 .56 .66 ICR I SAT .79 .52 .95 1.58 1.17 IFPRI .11 .15 .00 .00 .00 I ITA .48 .16 .44 .38 .74 I LCA .66 .92 .00 .00 .00 ILRAD .70 .69 .75 .93 1.01 IRRI . 2.26 2.75 2.67 2.55 3.75 ISNAR .35 .26 .40 .69 .84 WARDA .13 .12 .11 .15 .15 Sub tota I 22.87 24.55 27.37 32.10 36.04 Management Admi n I stratlon CIAT 2.58 3.02 2.58 2.51 2.61 CIMMYT 1.67 1.50 1.78 2.00 2.14 CIP 1.13 .98 1.05 1.13 1.23 IBPGR .91 .91 .42 .48 .50 I CARDA 2.71 2.60 2.26 2.55 2.74 ICR I SAT 1.81' 1.86 2.45 2.77 2.83 IFPRI .58 .56 .61 .71 .75 I ITA 1.93 2.02 1.87 2.83 3.76 I LCA .39 .57 .76 1.10 .94 ILRAD 1.13 1.14 1.19 1.21 1.33 IRRI 2.00 2.01 1.79 1.75 1.87 ISNAR .38 .49 .85 .67 .71 WARDA .13 .11 .11 .29 .29 General Operations CIAT 4.05 2.77 2.78 2.69 2.80 CIMMYT 1.06 1.48 1.46 2.45 1.97 CIP 1.29 1.38 1.34 1.78 1.77 IBPGR .00 .00 .10 .00 .00 I CARDA 2.42 2.42 2.44 2.19 2.20 ICR I SAT 2.89 2.28 3.59 3.45 3.81 IFPRI .36 .63 .53 .63 .74 I ITA 6.75 6.68 5.90 4.80 5.30 ; I LCA 1.50 1.76 1.55 1.99 2.21 I LRAD 1.24 1.05 1.28 1.31 1.40 IRRI 2.79 2.56 3.37 3.60 3.57 ISNAR .53 .54 .00 .00 .00 Sifctota I 42.23 41.32 42.06 44.89 47.47 Research Support Research Support CIAT 3.18 3.31 3.59 3.41 4.06 CIMMYT 3.05 3.70 3.62 4.29 4.90 CIP 1.43 1.81 1.26 1.38 1.44 I CARDA 1.72 1.82 2.05 2.16 2.31 ICR I SAT 2.46 1.84 2.23 1.98 2.35 I ITA 2.48 2.47 3.47 3.74 4.30 1 LCA 1.12 1.42 1.01 .97 1.10 I LRAD 1.51 1.71 1.59 2.01 2.57 WARDA 1.06 .92 .87 .55 .55 Subtotal 18.01 19.00 19.69 20.49 23.58 Annex I I Page 3 CGIAR Core Research Expenditures by Center (1983-1987) (In US$ mill Ions) OperationaI Actua I s Plans Proposa I s 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Cereals Ma I ze CIMMYT 3.70 4.28 4.90 5.46 5.83 I ITA .90 .90 1.02 1.10 1.18 Millet ICR I SAT 2.08 2.25 2.11 1.73 1.95 RI ce Cl AT .87 .89 .99 1.06 1.24 I ITA .90 .90 1.05 1.14 1.23 IRRI 9.66 9.68 10.06 9.90 10.97 WAR DA .97 .84 .66 1.17 2.77 Sorghum ICR I SAT 2.35 1.75 1.57 2.06 2.66 Wheat and Barley CIMMYT 5.28 5.85 5.34 5.20 5.56 I CARDA 1.51 1.69 1.94 2.20 2.42 Food Legumes Beans Cl AT 2.46 2.78 2.63 2.95 3.22 Food Legumes I CARDA 1.56 1.66 1.67 2.33 2.63 ICR I SAT 1.33 1.24 1.30 1.60 1.61 I ITA 1.29 1.87 1.58 1.40 1.51 Groundnut ICR I SAT 1.10 1.26 1.28 1.91 2.00 Food Pol icy Policy IFPRI. 2.32 2.53 2.92 3.30 3.86 Livestock Di seases I LCA .25 .42 .00 .00 .00 ILRAD 3.44 3.60 3.60 3.84 5.15 Production Cl AT 2.96 3.23 3.13 3.29 3.57 ICARDA .69 1.03 1.45 1.76 1.81 I LCA 5.22 5.63 6.68 6.79 7.83 Natural Resources Farming Systems I CARDA 1.69 1.63 1.99 2.04 2.10 ICR I SAT 1.80 2.71 2.23 2.46 2.88 I ITA 2.15 2.57 2.14 2.99 3.67 IRRI .21 .33 .36 .37 .30 Genetic Resources Cl AT .36 .46 .29 .30 .38 IBPGR 2.86 2.50 2.09 2.56 2.96 I CARDA .23 .36 .50 .86 1.02 ICR I SAT .39 .36 .38 .32 .41 IRRI .21 .27 .27 .31 .38 Roots and Tubers Potatoes CIP 3.97 4.44 4.70 5.48 5.23 Roots and Tubers C I AT 1.90 1.91 1.93 1.93 2.19 CIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .82 I ITA 1.18 1.20 1.33 1.30 1.50 Total Core Research 67.79 73.02 74.09 81.11 92.84 Annex I I Page 2 Aggregation of CGIAR Core Research Expenditures (1983-1987) ( In US$ mi I I Ions) Research Program DetaiI Operational Actua I s Plans Proposa Is 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Cereals Ma Ize 4.60 5.18 5.92 6.56 7.01 Millet 2.08 2.25 2.11 1.73 1.95 Ri ce 12.40 12.31 12.76 13.27 16.21 Sorghum 2.35 1.75 1.57 2.06 2.66 Wheat and Barley 6.79 7.54 7.28 7.40 7.98 Subtotal 28.22 29.03 29.64 31.02 35.81 Food Legumes Beans 2.46 2.78 2.63 2.95 3.22 Food Legumes 4.18 4.77 4.55 5.33 5.75 Groundnut 1.10 1.26 1.28 1.91 2.00 Sub tota I 7.74 8.81 8.46 10i 19 10.97 Food Policy Policy 2.32 2.53 2.92 3.30 3.86 Livestock Dl seases 3.69 4.02 3.60 3.84 5.15 Production 8.87 9.89 11.26 11.84 13.21 Sub tota I 12.56 13.91 14.86 15.68 18.36 Natural Resources Farming Systems 5.85 7.24 6.72 7.86 8.95 Genetic Resources 4.05 3.95 3.53 4.35 5.15 Sub tota I 9.90 11.19 10.25 12.21 14.10 Roots and Tubers Potatoes 3.97 4.44 4.70 5.48 5.23 Roots and Tubers 3.08 3.11 3.26 3.23 4.51 Sub tota I 7.05 7.55 7.96 8.71 9.74 Total Core Research 67.79 73.02 74.09 81.11 92.84 Annex I I Page 1 Aggregation of CGIAR Core Operational Expenditures (1983-1987) ( In US$ mi I I Ions) Operational ActuaIs PIans Proposa Is 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Research Cereals 28.22 29.03 29.64 31.02 35.81 Food Legumes 7.74 8.81 8.46 10.19 10.97 Food Policy 2.32 2.53 2.92 3.30 3.86 Livestock 12.56 13.91 14.86 15.68 18.36 Natural Resources 9.90 11.19 10.25 12.21 14.10 Roots and Tubers 7.05 7.55 7.96 8.71 9.74 Sub tota I 67.79 73.02 74.09 81.11 92.84 Strengthening NARs Info/Comm/Lib/Doc 8. 11 9.08 10.17 11.23 12.00 Institution Bui Iding 3.70 3.78 5.82 7.94 8.99 Training/Conferenee 11.06 11.69 11.38 12.93 15.05 Subtotal ■22.87 24.55 27.37 32. 10 36.04 Research Support Research Support 18.01 19.00 19.69 20.49 23.58 Management Admin i strat ion 17.35 17.77 17.72 20.00 21.70 General Operations 24.88 23.55 24.34 24.89 25.77 Subtotal 42.23 41.32 42.06 44.89 47.47 Total Core Operations 150.90 157.89 163.21 178.59 199.93 Annex I Page 4 CGIAR Senior Manyears (Core) (1983-1987) Operational Ac+uaIs Plans Proposa Is 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 CIAT 57 54 65 65 71 CIMMYT 70 77 80 85 87 CIP 30 30 30 31 31 IBPGR 2.5 2.5 2-5 %5 2.5 ICARDA 41 42 43 52 53 ICR I SAT 77 73 73 81 89 IFPRI 21 21 21 22 24 I ITA 57 V 56 V 176 V 193 V 183 V I LCA 48 49 53 53 54 ILRAD 45 48 50 50 60 IRRI 57 56 58 65 69 ISNAR 23 23 25 24 27 WARDA 27 27 27 20 20 Total 558 561 706 746 773 V As reported by I ITA. Annex I Page 3 Part I: CGIAR Core Operating Expenditures by Center ( 1983-1987) (In US$ ml I I Ions) Operational ActuaIs Plans Proposals 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 C I AT 20.79 21.44 20.61 20.90 23.00 C IMMYT 17.90 20.32 21.01 23.47 24.95 CIP 9.30 9.88 9.61 11.69 12.44 IBPGR 4.51 4.10 4.26 4.68 5.11 I CARDA 13.83 14.78 16.00 18.27 19.66 ICR I SAT 17.66 16.75 18.81 20.97 22.95 IFPRI 3.82 4.32 4.06 4.64 5.35 I ITA 18.98 20.00 20.23 20.90 24/50 I LCA 10.10 11.81 12.62 13.91 15.60 ILRAD 8.36 8.50 8.78 9.69 11.88 IRRI 19.91 20.53 21.57 22.23 24.58 ISNAR 3.30 3.34 3.78 4.84 5.85 WARDA 2.44 2.12 1.87 2.40 4.00 Total 150.90 157.89 163.21 178.59 199.93 Part I I : CGIAR Core Capital Expenditures by Center ( 1983-1987) (In US$ millions) Operational ActuaIs P I ans Proposals 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 C I AT 1.36 1.36 .98 .71 1.08 CIMMYT '.33 .79 .44 .05 .00 CIP .65 1.00 .63 .40 .64 I CAR DA 5.12 4.58 3.73 .90 1.50 ICR I SAT 1.69 2.29 2.17 6.09 9.01 IFPRI .02 .06 .22 .14 .11 I ITA .95 .73 2.27 1.08 .30 I LCA 1.06 1.80 1.77 1.08 .90 I LRAD .74 .39 .43 .82 1.33 IRRI .95 .98 .40 .30 1.51 ISNAR .07 .03 .04 .08 .09 WARDA .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Total 12.94 14.01 13.08 11.65 16.47 Annex I Page 2 World Bank Funding by Center (1983-1986) (In USS ml I I Ions) ActuaIs Estimate 1983 1984 1985 1986 CIAT .61 1.33 1.30 .75 CIMMYT .05 1.67 2.00 .75 CIP .00 .04 .40 .10 IBPGR .00 .44 .25 .00 I CARDA 5.00 5.37 5.25 3.00 ICRISAT 1.40 1.39 .95 .50 IFPRI .81 .94 1.22 1.25 I ITA 3.89 5.13 5.00 3.00 I LCA 2.63 3.04 3.75 3.00 ILRAD .80 1.57 1.20 1.00 IRRI .42 1.12 2.50 .75 ISNAR .71 .92 . .96 .80 WARDA .84 . .71 . .75 .37 Total 17.16 23.67 25.53 15.27 Linai located 8.13 Stabilization Mechanism 2.57 5.00 Total 28.10 28.40 Annex I Page 1 Part I: CGIAR Core Funding by Center (1983-1987) ( in US$ mill Ions) 1986 1987 1983 1984 1985 Current Increase ActuaI ActuaI of whichEstimate Approva Is Estimate Request over 1987 Price RealIncreases Amount Amount Cl AT 21 23.5 21.2 22.3 21.4 23.9 2.6 0.9 CIMMYT 18 20.7 1.719.4 23.3 21.9 23.9 2.0 1.6 CIP 0.410 9.7 10.2 12.0 11.2 13.0 1.8 0.5 1.3 IBPGR 4 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.5 5.1 0.6 0.3I CARDA 0.320 21.0 17.8 19.2 18.2 20.3 2.1 0.6 1.5ICR I SAT 21 21.0 20.3 22.9 22.1 24.7 2.6 0.9 IFPRI 1.74 4.3 4.4 5.1 4.8 5.5 0.7 0.3 0.4I ITA 20 20.9 20.4 22.8 21.9 I 25.6 3.7 1.8LCA 1.912 12.6 13.8 15.4 14.8 I 16.5 1.7 1.4LRAD 0.38.0 9.3 8.7 10.6 10.1 13.2 3.1 0.6 IRRI 2.520.3 19.7 21.0 23.7 22.9 25.4 2.5 1.4ISNAR 1.13.0 3.3 3.7 3.9 4.2 5.2 1.0 0.3WAR DA 0.73 2 2.5 2.9 2.4 4.0 1.6 0.4 1.2 3/ Total 162.4 172.3 167.6 188.7 180.4 206.4 26.0 11.0 15.0 Stab. Mech. 2 0.8 2.5 5.0 7.6 TOTAL 164.7 173.1 170.1 V 193.7 2/ 188.0 2/ 2/ For some centers, the CGIAR secretariat estimate appears to be different from the center's estimate due to a different accounting treatment for contributions which were not received in the year they were pledged. £/' Including $4.2 million of technical adjustments. 2/ Amounts for WARDA are'not Iona I. Part II: Comparative Price Increases by Center ( 1983-1987) (In percentages) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ActuaI ActuaI ActuaI Estimate Estimate Cl AT -n 4$ 4? CIMMYT 4$ 4?-5? 9? 6? CIP 9% 7%-4$ 5$ -5$ 5? IBPGR 5?1* 7* 7% 7% 7%I CARDA 9% 9? 9% 8$ICR I SAT 3?2? 4$ 4? 4? IFPRI 4$3$ 8? I ITA 8? 8% 5%9% 8% 8%I LCA 8% 8%3* 9? 10?I LRAD 10? 10?-4? 6? IRRI 6? 6? 6?-1? 6? ISNAR 6? 6? 6?1? 6? WARDA 6? 6? 6?3? 5? 5? 5? 5? Total 1.2? 6.5? 5.7? 6.6? 5.6? Attachment 2 Page 1 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review Cl AT - Rev lew List Following items are proposed as additions in 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC C $•000) Priority H/M/L 65 Strengthening genetic resource unit PI 173 Postdoctoral fellowship P9 230 1.0 Cassava liaison scientist Africa P6 160 1.0 Rice economist P5 192 1.0 Tropical pastures reclamation specialist P2 humid tropics 196 1.0 Africa wide bean coordinator P6 65 Tra Ining materials P9 153 Quarantine greenhouse Cl 195 1.0 Land system specialist P2 244 1.0 V i ro I og i st P4 Subtotal 1673 6.0 Following items are proposed as reductions in 1987 if funding In real terms is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr. SY Description TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 621 Continuation of three sub-programs 130 Training scholarships 105 Post doctoral/visiting scientist Subtotal 856 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review CIMMYT - Review List Following Items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($’000) Priority H/M/L 150 1.0 Molecular geneticist P4 150 1.0 Experiment stations P8 137 Training fellowships P9 Subtotal 437 2.0 Following Items are proposed as reductions In 1987 if funding In real terms is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr. SY Description TAC (S'000) Priority . H/M/L 350 Training fellowshlp 200 General administration 100 Research support 346 Service to NARS - maize and wheat 150 1.0 Training coordinator 175 1.0 Wheat: Southern Cone 175 1.0 Maize: West Africa Subtotal 1496 3.0 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review CIP- Review List l Following items are proposed as additions in 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($’000) Priority H/M/L 530 Sweet Potatoes: Direct research P3 350 n n Regional research P3 150 ii ii Training P9 240 n ii Equ i pment Cl 85 n ii Working capital Subtotal 1355 Following Items are proposed as reductions In 1987 If funding In real terms Is bel ow 1986 fund I ng : Amount Sr. SY Description TAC (S'000) PrISrity H/M/L 47 Relocation physiologist to Asia 47 Physlologl st (HQ) 158 Transfer/opening regional office West Africa 105 Strengthening regional office China 53 Restoring regional research scientist position 53 Restoring activities In South America 53 Post-doctoral Sub-Tota I 516 t Attachment 2 Page 4 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review IBPGR - Review List Following Items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC <$'000) Priority H/M/L 50 In vitro research PI 110 Seed conservation research PI 150 Genetic diversity research PI Subtotal 310 Following Items are proposed as reductions In 1987 If funding In real terms Is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr. SY Description TAC (S'000) Priorlty H/M/L 60 Administration and technical services 50 Global genetic resources network 110 Germplasm characterization and evaluation 50 Training 50 In vitro research Subtotal 320 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 12 * 1987 Program and Budget Review ICARDA - Review List Following Items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 300 Nile Valley program: wheat and barley P8 129 Genetic activities and seed health P1 79 1.0 Biometrician PIO 100 Research on plant nematodes P4 79 Training visiting scientists P9 150 Celebration - 10th anniversary P10 300 Three houses Tel Hadya C1 300 Plastic greenhouses Cl Subtotal 1437 1.0 Following Items are proposed as reductions In 1987 if funding In real terms Is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 200 Breeding work In barley - Latin America 250 Tra InIng 45 Economic component In the FSP Subtotal 495 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review ICRI SAT - Review List Following Items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 205 Administrative Services ISC (HFS & PPS) P6 139 1.0 Sorghum and millet coordinator/ agronomist - East Africa P6 350 Capital Cl 104 0.5 Microb lo log I st - ISC P2 202 Training funds P9 116 0.5 Soil and water specialist - West Africa P2 400 Capital Cl 147 Working capital Subtotal 1663 2.0 Following items are proposed as reductions In 1987 if funding in real terms is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr. SY Description TAC ( $ • 000) Priority H/M/L 119 Economist - ISC (locally recruited) 180 0.8 Statistician - ISC 164 1.0 Soi I scient 1st - ISC 367 1.0 Drought physiologist - sorghum 50 Administrative Services ISC (HFS & PPS) Sub tota I 880 2.8 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review * IFPRI - Review List Following items are proposed as additions in 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($•000) Priority H/M/L 123 0.7 Technology policy P5 260 1.5 Development strategy - labor markets P5 76 Rent PIO Subtotal 459 2.2 Following items are proposed as reductions in 1987 if funding In real terms is below 1986 fund i ng : Amount Sr. SY Description I ssue TAC (S'OOO) Priority H/M/L 170 1.0 Technology policy - fertilizers 33 Miscellaneous operating costs Subtotal 203 1.0 Attachment 2 Page 8 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review I ITA - Review List Following Items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 300 3.0 Networking groups - farming systems P2 300 Training P9 100 Works to improve safety and security C2 200 Repairs to roofing C2 200 Repairs to existing roads C2 721 Working capital Subtotal 1821 3.0 Following Items are proposed as reductions in 1987 if funding in real terms Is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr.' SY Description TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 900 Working capital 350 2.0 Financial controls, auditor, deputy director general 125 1.0 Creation senior position - farming systems 1300 -13.0 Termination costs 100 1.0 Senior plant breeder - yam and sweet potato Subtotal 2775 -9.0 Attachment 2 Page 9 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review ILCA - Rev lew List Following Items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC < $'000) Priority H/M/L 168 1.9 Central research (animal sciences) P7 196 -1.7 Field program (replace special project) P7 37 0.5 Remote sensing specialist, etc. P2 164 0.8 Networks and general operations P7 Subtotal 565 1.5 Following Items are proposed as reductions In 1987 If funding In real terms Is below 1986 funding: Amount . Sr. SY Description TAC (S'000) Priority H/M/L 1420 Un spec I fled Subtotal 1420 i Attachment 2 Page 10 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review ILRAD - Review List Following items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 250 1.5 Social scientists P5 163 Increased operating costs P10 88 Working capital 200 1.0 Chemotherapy (trypanosomiasis) P7 200 1.0 Trypanotolerance in cattle P7 150 1.0 Training Officer - West Africa P9 600 Laboratory and off Ice/inter-center C1 600 3.0 Cowdrlosis program P7 200 Equi pment Cl 85 Working capital Subtotal 2536 7.5 Following items are proposed as reductions In 1987 if funding in real terms Is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr. SY Description TAC ($'000) Priority H/M/L 188 The I ler la 235 1.4 Trypanosomiasis 151 Research Support 73 Training Subtotal 647 1.4 Attachment 2 Page 11 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review IRRI - Review List -- Following Items are proposed as additions in 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($’000) Priority H/M/L 122 Genetici st P4 460 Renovation laboratory C2 175 RenovatI on/a I ternatI on I aborator Ies C2 300 Additional greenhouse Cl Sub tota 1 1057 Following Items are proposed as reductions in 1987 If funding In real terms is below 1986 funding: Amount Sr. SY Description TAC ($•000) Priority H/M/L. 173 Training 375 Equipment, for biotechnology 753 Scientific and office equipment 178 International travel Subtotal 1479 Attachment 2 Page 12 of 12 1987 Program and Budget Review ISNAR - Rev Iew LIst Following Items are proposed as additions In 1987: Amount Sr. SY Description Issue TAC ($•000) Priority H/M/L 140 1.00 Advisory services to NARs P8 100 Strengthening training program P9 70 Strengthening research progran P8 140 1.00 Advisory services to NARs P8 70 lnformatlon/documentatlon/pii) I Ication P9 140 1.00 Advisory services to NARs P8 50 Equi pment C1 100 Working capital Subtotal 810 3.00 Following Items are proposed as reductions In 1987 If funding In real terms Is bel ow 1986 fund I ng : Amount Sr. SY Description TAC (t'000) Pr lorlty H/M/L 120 1.0 Training program 120 1.0 Research program Subtotal 240 2.0 Attachment la Page 5 of 5 TAC Center Amount Deseriptlon I ssue Priority ($'000) Number H/M/L Section II; Capitai Items Working Capital I ITA 721 ILRAD 88 ICR I SAT 147 ISNAR 100 CIP 85 Sweet potato ILRAD 85 1226 Capital (New Items) ISNAR 50 Equ i pment ICR I SAT 350 Ca pitaI P6 CI AT 153 Quarantine greenhouse CIP 240 Equipment - sweet potato ILRAD 200 Equ I pment ILRAD 600 inter-center P6 IRRI 300 Additional greenhouse ICARDA 300 Three houses Tel Hadya ICR I SAT 400 Capital P6 I CARDA 300 Plastic greenhouses 2893 Capital (Maintenance) IRRI 175 Renovation/a Iternation IaboratorIes I ITA 100 Works to improve safety and security I ITA 200 Repairs to roofing IRRI 460 Renovation laboratory I ITA 200 Repairs to existing roads 1 135 Attachment 1b Page 1 of 5 1987 Program and Budget Review Review List - Items for Reduction If Funding Inadequate Section I: Program Items TAC Center Amount SrSY Description Issue Priority ($'000) Number H/M/L I. Resource Management and Conservation (a) Plant Genetic Conservation IBPGR 50 In vitro research IBPGR 50 Global genetic resources network IBPGR 110 Germplasm characterization and evaluation 210 (b ) Other Natural Resources I ITA 125 1.0 Creation senior position - farming systems I CARDA 45 Economic component in the FSP 170 Attachment 1b Page 2 of 5 TAC Center Amount SrSY Descriptlon Issue Priority <$'000) Numb er H/M/L I I. Crop Productivity P6 (a) Regional Programs Africa ICR I SAT 50 Administrative Services ISC (HFS & PPS) ICRISAT 180 0.8 Statistician - ISC ICR IS At 119 Economist - ISC (locally recruited) ICRISAT 367 1.0 Drought physiologist - sorghum (ISC) ICRISAT 164 1.0 So i I sc lenti st - ISC CIMMYT 175 1.0 Maize - West Africa CIP 158 Transfer/opening regional office West Africa Asia •CIP 47 Relocation physio log I st to Asia CIP 53 Restoring regional research scientist position CIP 105 Strengthening regional office China Latin America CIMMYT 175 1.0 Wheat - Southern Cone CIP 53 Restoring activities in South America I CARDA 200 Breeding work In barley - Latin America 1846 (b) General ClAT 621 Continuation of three sib-programs CIP 53 Post-doctora I ClAT 105 Post-doctora I/vl siting scientist I ITA 100 1.0 Senior plant breeder - yam and sweet potato CIP 47 Physio I ogi st (HQ) 926 Attachment 1b Page 3 of 5 TAC Center Amount SrSY Description Issue Priority ($'000) Number H/M/L III. Livestock Productivity I LCA 1420 Un spec I fled ILRAD 188 The 11erI a ILRAD 235 1.4 Trypanosomlasi s 1843 I V. Policy Research P5 IFPRI 170 1.0 Technology poi icy Attachment 1b Page 4 of 5 TAC Center Amount SrSY De seri ptlon Issue Priorlty <$'000) Number H/M/L V. Strengthening NARs - Institutional P8 ISNAR 174 Research program CIMMYT 346 Service to NARS - maize and wheat 520 VI. TrainIng P9 CIMMYT 150 1.0 Training coordinator CIMMYT 350 Training fellowship IBPGR 50 Training C I AT 130 Training scholarships IRRI 173 Tra ining I CARDA 250 Training I LRAD 73 Train ing ISNAR 120 Training program 1296 VII. Research Support and Administration I LRAD 151 Research support CIMMYT 100 Research support IRRI 753 Scientific and office equipment IRRI 178 International travel I ITA 1300 -13.0 Termination costs I ITA 350 2.0 Financial controls, auditor, deputy DG IBPGR 60 Administration and technical services CIMMYT 200 General administration IFPRI 33 Miscellaneous operating costs 3125 » ; Attachment 1b Page 5 of 5 TAC Center Amount SrSY Description Issue Pr ior ity ($'000) Number H/M/L Section II: Capital Items Working Capital 1 ITA 900 Rebuilding of working capital Capital purchases IRRI 375 Equipment for biotechnology 1 1381 Attachment la Page 4 of 5 TAC Center Amount SrSY Deseriptlon Issue Pr lority ($'000) Number H/M/L V. Strengthening NARs - Institutional P8 I CARDA 300 Nile Valley -wheat and barley ISNAR 70 Strengthening research program CIMMYT 150 1.0 Experiment stations ISNAR 420 3.0 Advisory services to NARs 940 ! VI. Training P9 CIMMYT 137 Training fellowships . CIP 150 Training:' sweet potato CI AT 173 Postdoctoral fellowship ISNAR 70 Information/documentation/pub IIcation CI AT 65 Tra in i ng materials ILRAD 150 1.0 Training officer - West Africa' ICR I SAT 202 Training funds I CARDA 79 Training visiting scientists I ITA 300 Training I LCA 7 Tra in Ing ISNAR 100 Strengthening training program 1433 VII. Research Support and Administration P10 I CARDA 79 1.0 Biometrician IFPRI 76 Rent I CARDA 150 Celebration - 10th anniversary I LCA 17 0.3 General operations ILRAD 163 Increased operating costs 485 ? Attachment la Page 3 of 5 I TAC Center Amount SrSY Description Issue Priority ($'000) Numb er H/M/L III. Livestock Productivity (a) Ruminant Diseases ILRAD 200 1.0 Trypanotolerance In cattle P7 1 LRAD 600 3.0 Cowdrlosls program P7 ILRAD 200 1.0 Chemotherapy (trypanosomiasis) P7 ILRAD 250 1.5 Socia I sci enee P5 1250 (b) Ruminant Production I LCA 196 -1.7 Field program (replace special project) P7 I LCA 168 1.9 Central research (animal sciences) P7 I LCA 140 0.5 Networks P7 ' C I AT 192 1.0 Tropical pastures reclamation specialist P2 696 I V. Policy Research P5 IFPRI 123 0.7 Technology poi Icy IFPRI 260 1.5 Development strategy 383 Attachment la Page 2 of 5 TAC Center Amount SrSY Deseription Issue Priority ($'000) Number H/M/L I I. Crop Productivity (a) Sweet Potato P3 CIP 350 Sweet potatoes - regional research CIP 530 Sweet potatoes - direct research 880 (b) Rice In West Africa WARDA 1220 (c) Germp 1 asm Enhancement ^IRRI 122 Genetici st CIMMYT 150 1.0 Molecular geneticist 272 (d) Liaison/Coordination in Africa P6 ICR I SAT 205 Administrative Services ISC (HFS & PPS) ICR I SAT 139 1.0 Sorghum and millet coordinator/ ag ronom i st - Ea st Afri ca Cl AT 196 1.0 Africa wide bean coordinator CI AT 230 1.0 Cassava liaison scientist - Africa 770 (e) Crop Protection P4 I CARDA 100 Research on nematodes CI AT 244 1.0 VI ro I og i st 344 (f) Socio-economics P5 Cl AT 160 1.0 Rice economist . Attachment 1a Page 1 of 5 1987 Program and Budget Review Rev lew List: Additions Section I: Program Items TAC Center Amount SrSY Descr I ptlon Issue Priority ($•000) Number H/M/L I. Resource Management and Conservation (a) Plant Genetic Conservation PI IBPGR 150 Genetic diversity research I CARDA 129 Genetic activities and seed health IBPGR 110 Seed conservation research IBPGR 50 In vitro research Cl AT 65 Strengthening genetic resource unit 504 (b) Other Natural Resources P2 ICR I SAT 116 0.5 Soil and water specialist - West Africa P6 CI AT 195 1.0 Land system specialist I LCA 37 0.5 Remote sensing specialist, etc. I ITA 300 3.0 Networking groups - farming systems ICR I SAT 104 0.5 Microb iologl st - ISC P6 752 Review of the 1987 Program and Budget Proposals of CGIAR Centers Introduction 1. TAC annually reviews the programs and budgets of CGIAR centers and recommends to the Group high priority center programs for funding, Centers propose to the TAC, additions to ongoing activities as well as cutbacks from the current levels. TAC assigns priorities (high, medium and low) to the specific items proposed by the centers and recommends a funding level for each center. The priorities provide guidance to the centers in altering the recommended programs if actual funding differs from the TAC recommendation. In addition to judging the relevance of the proposed activities to CGIAR objectives, TAC uses several criteria in its decision-making, These include overall CGIAR funding availability, patterns of donor support to individual centers, etc. The CGIAR secretariat issues the guidelines for presenting center proposals /, processes the responses and comments on them. 2. This paper, prepared by the CGIAR and TAC secretariats, comments on the 1987 center proposals and highlights items of systemwide concern. Centers have already provided to the TAC their proposals in two forms: an executive summary and a detailed P and B document. For ease of review, the individual center executive summaries are also provided as a companion volume (Volume 2) to this paper. 3. This paper is organized as follows: Section I - financial summary (paras 4 and 5) - limiting considerations (paras 6 through 8) Section II: - program and budget issues in 1987 (paras 9 through 46) Section III - center specific comments (paras 47 through 63). Annex material provides: details of center items for review and for recording TAC decisions (attachments 1 and 2); key features of center summaries (annex 1) and tabulation of systemwide summaries (annexes 2 and 3). Background documentation such as the guidelines and the suggestions for conducting the process is covered in the other attachments. Section I — Financial Summary 4. The 1987 proposals require core funding from the CGIAR of $206 million to support operational expenditures of $199 million and capital outlays of $19 million._/ Centers project that special project financing is likely to be $35—$45 million. Therefore, to support the 1987 programs of the centers, $241-$251 million donor financing is needed. This compares with 1986 estimated financing of about $225 million. 1 / For 1987 the guidelines did not put a limit on additions and suggested that cutbacks be proposed for the amount corresponding to the 1987 inflation requirements for each center. o / Restricted capital funds on hand of $7 million as well as investment income and recovery of indirect costs from special projects will provide the remaining funds. - 2 - 5. The 1987 core financing requirements of $206 million are $26 million or 13% higher than the 1986 funding to the centers of about $180 million^/. In the aggregate, this can be separated as follows: - financing of 1987 inflation related cost increases:$11 million corresponding to an average rate of 5.6% for 1987. - financing of increased operational activities (in real terms): $10 million. This includes a notional increment of $1.2 million to support a $4 million rice research and training program in West Africa. - financing of additional 1987 capital requirements: $5 million. Limiting Considerations 6. The implementation of CGIAR programs in 1987 is likely to be affected by the following: - The CG secretariat projects core funding in 1987 of $198-200 million. Of this total, the World Bank will allocate some resources for stabilization purposes. For funding of center programs, a planning figure of $196 million is suggested. - Several centers continue to experience funding support, from CGIAR donors other than the World Bank, below that available to the system in the aggregate. Over the 1984-86 period IFPRI, ILCA, ICARDA, ISNAR and WARDA have experienced this problem. This underfinancing jeopardizes the execution of approved programs and a special effort may be necessary. - As the capital stock of the older centers ages, provisions are necessary to ensure prompt maintenance. While specific requests in 1987 amount to less than $1 million, this trend will accelerate. On the other hand, new additions to capital stock continue to be made. - As consensus is reached on the emerging priorities in the system, the allocation process will be expected to redirect resources. 7. If an overall financial limit of $196 million for 1987 core programs is accepted, additional requests for funding of $26 million need to be prioritized into a set of recommendations for $16 million ($196 million less $180 million in 1986). Hypothetically, if the first call on this $16 million is considered to be the 1987 cost increase requirements, the limitation on new increases would be $5 million ($16 million less $11 million for cost increases). In the event, the requests for real increases add up to $15 million ($10 m for programs and $5 m for capital). £/ Total core funding in 1986 is likely to be between $184-188 million, with the upper end dependent on the actual dollar value of the contributions. Based on the stabilization policies in effect, excess over the $180 million mark will be allocated to the stabilization mechanism. - 3 - 8. In context of systemwide priorities, some ongoing center activities could be of lesser priority than proposed new ones. To allow for a full review of such activities, centers have been requested and most have indicated, activities that would not be undertaken if funds were reduced between between 1986 and 1987 in real terms. These activities amount to $ll million and are available to make marginal changes reflecting the changing priorities at the systemwide level. However, this list is not of the same quality across the centers. Section II: Program and Budget Issues in 1987 9. Centers' program and budget proposals are analyzed in the paper as follows. In the first instance, analysis is provided of the $15 million proposed real increases, Later in the paper we have also analyzed the center proposals for cutbacks of $11 million. We have attempted to provide a context when discussing issues associated with these increments, However, the current process, unfortunately, only focusses on the incremental items and not on the total investments planned in 1987. In any event, it is probably not possible for an annual process to fully review the total programs of all thirteen CGIAR centers. This underlines the need to rapidly move towards a new process which allows such a full review. Real Increases (paras 10 through 42) 10. About one-third of the proposed increase is for capital items and illustrates the center demand for non-program funds as shown in the table below: Operations : Research program increases $9.7 m (63%) Research Support/Management and Administration $0.4 m ( 3%) Capital: New construction and equipment $2.9 m (19%) Maintenance capital $1.1 m ( 7%) Working capital $1.2 m ( 8%) It raises the question whether, for example, requests for maintenance and working capital should take precedence over program and capital items. In paragraphs below (paras 11 through 15) we discuss the capital issue first. Working capital is a center specific issue and is not addressed here but in the comments on IITA. Requests for New Construction and Equipment ($2.9 million) 11. The tabular illustration sets the context for the systemwide needs for new construction and equipment. It highlights the trend that inspite of the maturity of the CGIAR, the pace of capital spending continues to be - 4 - brisk. The continuing pace of capital investments raises a question whether in the near future the system needs to systematically assess long-term capital needs and their implications. Table 1 : Estimated Capital Stock at CGIAR Centers Valued at Cost (in $ m) Total Cum. Investments Additions 1984 1985 1986 1987 1 / Land and Bldg. 121.9 129.1 9.5 12.5 Equipment 73.6 79.3 3.3 4.0 Total 195.5 208.4 12.9 16.4 ^/Includes $1 m maintenance proposals and excludes working capital. 12. The capital program for incremental funding in 1987 is dominated by construction and equiping of facilities in Africa, The specifics of the 1987 program, include construction of houses, greenhouses and office and laboratory facilities. ICARDA proposes to continue the construction program at Tel Hadya by building houses. ILRAD has proposed a $0.6 million program, a significant portion of which will provide adequate facilities for other centers housed on the ILRAD campus. The ICRISAT program of $0.8 million envisages initiating its East African center and a regional sorghum program in West Africa. CIAT, ICARDA, ILRAD and IRRI plan additional greenhouses and equipment purchases. Finally, CIP proposes additional equipment/facilities associated with its Sweet Potato program. 13. Above proposals are in addition to a $[10] million capital program included in the base proposals of the centers, About 80% of this is accounted for the construction phase of the Sahelian center, financing for which is largely on hand. In addition, ICRISAT would continue construction started in 1986 for its regional groundnut program in Malawi. The remaining items in the base program are a continuing housing program at ILCA, continuing capital works at both CIAT and to smaller extent at CIP. Of similar nature is construction financed from special projects, for an ICRISAT sorghum and millet program in Zimbabwe. Maintenance Capital ($1.1 million) 14. This issue was raised by IRRI last year and has yet to be addressed on a systemwide basis. The components, under the current budget conventions, are equipment replacements financed as part of the cost of the programs and facilities maintenance financed as part of capital costs. There are no systemwide guidelines on replacements with each center developing its own policies. By and large, centers appear have to have dealt with equipment 5 - replacement on the basis of funds availability quite satisfactorily, As to maintenance, this year there are two specific proposals: from IRRI for renovating laboratories and from IITA for items such as repairing roads, building safety islands and replacing roofs. 15. In acting on these proposals, it would be useful to decide whether, like the other capital elements in above paras 12 and 13, maintenance and replacements require a comprehensive assessment. A first step would be to recognize the priority need of these costs and ensure that they are funded ahead of new construction or program additions. Additional Operational Programs 16. The proposals for program additions [$ 10 million] are presented below using the priority framework established for the strategic considerations. As mentioned above, while this analysis would have higher utility in context of full understanding of the base programs, for the 1987 review process it serves as a convenient tool to aggregate information. (in $M) Referred in para. I. -Resource management and conservation (a) -plant genetic conservation 0.50 paras 18 thru 20 ^ (b) -other natural resources 0.75 paras 21 thru 23 /+ II. -Crop productivity (a) -New program on sweet potatoes 0.88 )paras 24, 25 M (b) -program of rice research in W.A 1.22 ) L. (c) -germplasra enhancement 0.27 paras 26 thru 28 & H (rice and wheat) (d) -liaison/co-ord for Africa 0.77 paras 31 thru 34 ( (bean, cassava, sorghum/millet) (e) -crop protection 0.34 paras 26 thru 28 /+ '(f) -socio-economics 0.16 paras 29, 30 ? III. -Livestock productivity (a) -ruminant diseases 1. -trypanosomiasis ?0.40 )para 36 2. -cowdriosis 0.60 ) 3. -socio-economics 0.25 paras 29, 30 H (b) -ruminant production 1. -pasture reclamation 0.19 paras 21 thru 23 ff 2. -animal science in Africa 0.51 para 35 H IV. -Policy research 0.38 paras 29, 30 V. -Institutional investments: for strengthening NARs 0.94 paras 37 thru 39 £4 VI. -Training 1.43 paras 40 , 4 1 /T VII. -research support, management and para 42 7 administration 0.48 Total operations 10.10 - 6 - 17. The discussion of the program proposals however is not limited to the framework. Even within a 2% real growth path for the system in 1987 and probably beyond, hard choices are necessary in recommending additional activities. The objective of the commentary is, therefore, to synthesize the center proposals, to the extent possible, into a set of substantive program concerns. As a result, the commentary uses other aggregating themes whenever appropriate. Ten issues are identified and discussed below. Plant Genetic Conservation (Item 1(a): $0.5 million) 18. New initiatives in this area are proposed by IBPGR as well as by CIAT and ICARDA. IBPGR proposes expanding the research on diversity, seed conservation and in vitro research, the others propose strengthening the genetic resources units (GRU). As to the latter, these activities have been highlighted as an area of CGIAR concern since 1984 requiring special efforts by the commodity centers. The CIAT/ICARDA responses are for strengthening their respective GRUs, including financing a seed health activity at ICARDA, by additions of staff and funds. 19. Due to the late resolution of the IBPGR issue, IBPGR proposals appear to only partially reflect plans to implement the EPR recommendations. IBPGR has significantly restructured its program in 1986, emphasizing for example in vitro culture research ($0.6 million in 1986 vs $0.2 million in 1985.) [IBPGR plans to discuss at this meeting how it would fully address the review recommendations.] 20. While the financial impact of CIÀT/ICARDA proposals is relatively- small, the question of balance between IBPGR activities and center activities is an important one. Starting in 1986, IBPGR stopped the funding provided to other CGIAR centers and redeployed it to its program. [As an example, IRRI's request in para.27 below is specifically to replace IBPGR funding], The current proposal would further shift resources on plant genetics to the IBPGR unless resources are also allocated to commodity centers, although the two specific center proposals in 1987 may not necessarily be the highest priorities. Conservation and Management of Other Natural Resources (Item 1(b) and 111(b)!: $0.94 million) 21. The CGIAR discussion in Ottawa endorsed the TAC recommendation that the sustainability of production systems is a high priority research problem. To apply these deliberations to the 1987 process, several 1987 center items related to the broader issue of natural resource management in a commodity context are grouped for this discussion. 22. Three centers are proposing major thrusts for incremental funding. Latin America: CIAT has proposed two activities related to the resource issue. The first is to add a land systems specialist in the agroecology unit which examines the agroclimatic zones and cropping systems in relation to germplasm evaluation trials. The second is to add a scientist to the Pastures program to focus on problems of pasture degradation and ecological 7 - damage in the deforested humid tropics, Africa : IITA proposes to finance a set of studies which will examine the linkages between its commodity programs and the farming systems program. This is a relevant issue in context of the expected redirection of this program towards improving the productivity of agricultural production systems. Finally, ICRISAT proposes a set of intiatives for its work based in the Sahelian center, A soil and water specialist would be added to address problems of crop production systems. A soil microbiologist is also proposed for conducting applied research on understanding the role of microorganisms in improving crop productivity. 23. ICRISAT is also making internal shifts to add further expertise on soil and plant nutrition in the Sahelian center. IRRI has plans to redeploy positions to add a soil scientist to focus on sustainability of rice soils. In view of the broad consensus within the system on this issue, these appear to be the right center responses. The only question is whether these responses need to be coordinated or appropriately linked with non-CGIAR institutions, for the most cost-effective response to these research problems. Expanded Commodity Research (11(a) and (b): $2.1 million) 24. The major item in 1987 is a $1 million supplementary program and budget proposal by CIP to expand research and training for sweet potato. The plans include launching a program of regional research and training as well as a small effort at CIP HQ. TAC has recommended the expansion of effort on sweet potato. The unresolved issue is modality of this undertaking between IITA, AVRDC, CIP and to a smaller extent IBPGR's involvement. A memorandum of understanding has been signed between the concerned parties on the broad areas of research problems to be handled by each of these centers. 25. A notional provision of about $4 million is included to undertake a program of rice research and training in West Africa. Of this total $1.2 million would be additional core funds in 1987. TAC at this meeting would be reviewing the research needs for the region to define the appropriate size of the program. Two relevant considerations are whether current rice investments at IITA of about [$1.2] million can be redeployed to this program and whether past special project donors to WARDA would now provide core funding. Basic/Strategic Research (Item 2(c) and (e) $0.61 million) 26. Applied research conducted at the CGIAR centers increasingly uses collaborative arrangements to address knowledge gaps in basic sciences, This is relevant in the area of molecular biology and the impact of these techniques on other biological research. While ILRAD has functioned at the forefront in this regard, several other centers have also made substantive progress in use of these techniques. The IBPGR research on in vitro culture, included in the plant genetics heading, could also fit here. All of the ILRAD proposals, included in the livestock heading, could also be considered in the category of basic/strategic research. - 8 - 27. We have selected four 1987 proposals to discuss this issue. Both IRRI and CIMMYT propose adding geneticists to their staff to undertake "upstream" activities in germplasm enhancement, The IRRI position would undertake the wild rice collection and evaluation work, funded earlier by IBPGR. The nature of the work would shift to take advantage of a newly-launched rice hybridization/genetic engineering program. The molecular geneticist in CIMMYT would establish a biotechnolgy research support unit. CIAT and ICARDA propose adding funds (CIAI would add staff) to apply advanced techniques to crop protection, CIAT would add a virologist while ICARDA would increase co-operation with developed country institutions. 28. TAC has taken the position in the strategic considerations that centers should incorporate the use of these advanced techniques by cooperative arrangements with other institutions, The CGIAR has also broadly endorsed this. The judgement made by two of the most well known and oldest CGIAR institutions appears to be somewhat contradictory, CIMMYT, for example, believes that its unit would eventually grow to a level of 10% of core resources, IRRI is already actively participating in a genetic engineering program. CIP has successfully used advanced techniques for multiplication and distribution of disease-free germplasm. The issue for TAC is to examine the center response in context of the apparent judgement by some centers that a critical mass of expertise is needed in a center for such collaboration. The complementary issue is whether the expertise should be financed incrementally. Policy Research (Items V, III(a)3 and 11(f): $0.8 million) 29. IFPRI proposes several Africa related studies in two of.its three programs. In its technology policy program, a study on fertilizer research and another on price policy to research impact of exchange rate .and consumption policies on success of technologies. In its development strategy program, research on African labor markets, Two proposals from other centers could also be considered as policy research. CIAT has had a long-standing proposal to add an economist in the rice program to undertake analysis of constraints on area expansion and increased productivity in the different production systems in Latin America. ILRAD has initiated a new activity to determine the socio-economic and environmental implications of improved disease control. 30. As in the genetic conservation issue, while policy research has been identified as a key priority area of the CGIAR, TAC needs to establish the balance between IFPRI and other centers. Another factor in case of the other two proposals by CIAT and ILRAD, both related to demand and impact analysis, may be the current lack of substantive knowledge base in these areas. Regional Programs in Africa: (Item II (d); $0.77 million) 31. CGIAR centers have often taken the initiatives to establish regional programs when needed. In the current context the priority region is Sub-Saharan Africa and a set of activities financed by special projects have 9 - been underway for several years. Most recently, the task forces set up by the CGIAR as well as the center directors are also in the process of systematically addressing this concern .particularly the issue of modality. We have selected several center proposals for incremental funding to discuss this issue. 32. CIAT proposes that an Africa-wide coordinator position be established in view of its increasing work on beans, largely funded by special projects, in that region, CIAT also proposes to establish a cassava liaison scientist position for Africa in IITA. In addition to the plans mentioned in para 22, ICRISAT is to place an agronomist as a Sorghum/millet coordinator for East Africa and also add administrative capacity at the Sahelian Center. While the justification for all of this is clear, the issue is whether such liaison should be available for more than one commodity to ensure integration of efforts. 33. In discussing regional program initiatives in 1987, some capital items mentioned earlier in paras 12 and 13 are relevant: Capital expenditures proposed by ICRISAT, to initiate the East Africa center and the regional sorghum program in West Africa ($0.75 million ) and by ILRAD to house CG center staff in Nairobi ($0.6 million). 34. Of interest is also the extent of regional programs which will be eliminated if centers face reduction in funding in real terms. About $1.85 of Regional programs activities considered to be,at the margin are varied as to the specific region. In Africa, CIMMYT lists one of the three positions in its West Africa maize program and CIP the proposed transfer of a scientist to West Africa. ' ICRISAT would not fill four posts at the Sahelian center — two for work on soils and drought physiology and other two for economic/statistical support. Latin America, CIMMYT would have to eliminate its Southern cone support, ICARDA would terminate its work on Barley and CIP would reduce its effort in non-Andean South America. Finally in Asia, CIP would not be able to strengthen its China office and delay a proposed transfer of a physiologist to Asia. Livestock in Africa (Item III except (a)3: $1.7 million) 35. For livestock production, ILCA does not propose any major additional thrusts and the requests largely appear to be miscellaneous increments in the central research on animal science and the backstopping of field programs previously funded from special projects. The other proposal by ILCA is for an expansion of its successful networks. These proposals can be dealt with based on TAC discussion of the ILCA external review recommendations at this meeting. The substantive issue for livestock production may be setting the direction of future work on livestock in Africa. Excluding management and support costs, the annual level of investment is now close to $7 million in Africa, and it may be useful to examine the basic thrust of work before making any incremental adjustments. [The CIAT proposal for pastures has been covered in the resource issue earlier.] 10 36. ILRAD's 1987 proposals for expanding their work on trypanosomiasis through chemotherapy and understanding the bio mechanisms in trypanotolerant cattle are responses to the EPR. ILRAD has also proposed a three staff program to undertake research on heartwater. TAC discussed this in March and the CGIAR in May. Since ILRAD has ruled out the option of undertaking this work on a redeployment basis, the principal issue is the level of additional resources for research on livestock diseases. Institutional Development (Item V: $0.9 million) 37. Four proposals are discussed in this heading. The major item is ISNAR's response to the EPR and in context of the discussion of the EPR recommendations. ISNAR states that it has restructured its program and implemented one of the major recommendations, establishing the research base, in 1986. The focus of its 1987 proposal is to expand ISNAR's capacity for delivering its services to all its clients. CIMMYT plans to add a scientist in its experiment station unit to improve its capacity to assist NARs in experiment station development and management. Since there is already consensus that this activity is high priority, the question, as in the case of plant genetic conservation and food policy, maybe that of balance between ISNAR and other centers. 38. ICARDA proposes an extension of its Nile Valley program on faba beans (funded as a special project) to wheat and barley. The faba bean project is in its third phase with increased emphasis on on-farm trials and demonstration fields on a village scale. And its success has prompted the three concerned governments Egypt, the Sudan and Ethiopia, to ask whether this approach could now be extended to other crops, The ICARDA funding proposal of $0.3 million would provide the impetus to start the research program extending the Nile Valley program to wheat and barley. 39. While other centers have not made core funding requests in 1987 to address the institutional issue, substantial work of this nature is planned through special project funding, by several centers. This has typically taken the form of collaborative research with a single country or a group of countries. Based on center information, the current focus is Africa and particularly in Eastern and Southern Africa. Examples are the activities of ICRISAT, CIAT, CIP, CIMMYT and IITA on maize, sorghum, millet, groundnuts, potatoes, beans and cowpeas. Annual investments of over $[6] million are planned. Two other projects are also worth mentioning in this regard. The first is the bio-control program of IITA which is entering a phase of implementation at the country level. One outcome would be to build basic capacity at the national level in the bio-control field. Another example is a project being launched by IRRI to build rice research capability in Campuchea and Vietnam. Training (Item VI: $1.4 million) 40. The proposals for additional resources reflect two basic trends. The first, amounting for over half of the total, are requests from CIP, ILRAD and IITA to expand their training programs. ILRAD's request represents a response to build francophone training capacity. CIP training resources are 11 specifically requested for undertaking training for sweet potato, IITA proposes additions to meet emerging new priorities, The remaining proposals, from CIAT, CIMMYT and ICRISAT represent additions mainly for rebuilding the training resources sacrificed earlier due to financial pressures. 41. Core financing for training continues to exhibit a familiar trend since it is relatively easy to attract special funding for training, Core funding for training is treated as a ’’swing" item by centers in times of financial stringency, This is clear in centers responses to reduction in funding in 1987. Over $1 million of training funds are proposed to be sacrificied if centers face a reduction in funding in 1987. In effect, therefore, the total amount of training offered for review is over $2 million ($1 m for additions and a larger amount for deletions), about one sixth of the total training program in 1987. The issue therefore is whether this treatment of the program is acceptable. This should be resolved before making additional allocations for training. Research Support, Management and Administration (Item VII: $0.5 million) 42. These requests include miscellaneous proposals from three centers such as an allocation to celebrate ICARDA's 10th anniversary, ICARDA would also add a biometrician to its staff. IFPRI faces increased rent and other miscellaneous office costs, ILRAD plans additional investments for general administration and operations, All of these represent important needs which need to be financed irrespective of any further growth in the specific center. Summary 43. While each set of proposals is clearly well-justified on its own merit the composite clearly raises several concerns. As to rice, TAC will be reviewing the needs of rice research in Africa and would need to decide on the total CG investment. The sweet potato issue is one of ensuring an ' appropriate method of sharing resources and workload after a decision whether an additional $1 million should be invested in this research on an incremental basis. The issue of regional programs in Africa is sizable. It is also different in the sense that there appears to be a consensus on the need for these activities. On the other hand, there also appears to be consensus that any coordination should be for more than one commodity. Related to this is the level of new investments for research on resources/production systems; a large portion of which is also for Africa. Finally, the proposals for supplementing upstream research need to examined in context of whether these new functions require additional funding or should be financed by redeployment. Proposals for Reduction ($11 million) 44. As suggested in the guidelines most centers have responded in proposing activities that would have to be sacrificed in case funding remains constant in nominal terms between 1986 and 1987. This leads to a bias that centers with high cost increase rates need to provide a higher portion of their on-going programs for review. [The maximum in any one case is 10% 12 while the average is around 5%.] The percentage composition of this review list is therefore of lesser significance than the list of additions. 45. Center responses are aggregated below using the priority framework. However, the responses across the centers are of inconsistent quality. Consequently, we have not provided an issue by issue analysis but only some general comments. (in $M) -Resource management and conservation -plant genetic conservation 0.21 -other natural resources 0.17 -Crop productivity -regional programs 1.85 para 34 (Wheat, maize, barley, potato, sorghum) -general 0.93 -Livestock productivity -ruminant diseases -tryps 0.24 -theileria 0.19 -ruminant production -animal science in Africa 1.42 -Policy research 0.17 -Training 1.30 para 41 -Institutional investments: for strengthening NARS 0.52 -research support, admin, and management 3.13 para 46 Total operations 10.11 -working capital 0.90 -biotechnology equipment 0.37 Total 11.38 46. Three areas dominate the list: Regional programs discussed in para.34 ($1.8 million), training discussed in para.40 and management. [Livestock is not substantive as ILCA did not provide a detailed list. The figure indicates the size of the list had ILCA provided it.] The management heading reflects the staff restructuring planned by IITA both to shed staff and to change the program focus. The cost of this restructuring is estimated at $1.5 million which IITA would have to forego if funding were reduced. Individual center review lists (attachments 1 and 2) provide the detailed responses prepared by the centers. 13 Section III: Center Specific Comments Cl AT 47. CIAT's six proposed additions cover its four programs as well as support services, CIAT also plans adding over $1 million in new capital stock in 1987. CIAT's response to a reduction in funding would be to eliminate three un-identified sub-programs and some training funds. The themes in the CIAT program appear to be adding capacity in Africa and a thrust in the pastures program for addressing the natural resource issue. The CIAT program poses a question of strategy for TAC as CIAT has identified several areas of high research potential where additional resources can be very usefully invested. Given, however, the medium term outlook for only small increases in funding for the current research portfolio of the CGIAR, the options are either to add small amounts to many programs or adding substantively to a few at the cost of eliminating work on others. CIMMYT 48. CIMMYT's program includes modest additions in 1987. In its proposal CIMMYT sets the context of redeployment of core resources out of the wheat program into maize over the past several years. For 1987 CIMMYT plans no additions to its three core programs; instead the plan is to consolidate the redirection of effort underway. This would imply, for example, in wheat emphasis on maintenance research and marginal environments and in maize inclusion of hybrids and coverage of all relevant environments including those in Africa. The major element of CIMMYT's. response for reduction is training and activities for backstopping NARs. The principal issue in CIMMYT's program of work is whether to make additional investments in priority areas of basic research techniques and product delivery to NARs. Past CIMMYT reviews have called for strengthening the research base at headquarters. While this would be helped by the molecular geneticist position, it still appears to be an incomplete response to the review questions. CIP 49. CIP's proposal launches a substantive, six staff and $1.3 million , program on sweet potato in 1987. The composition of this program reflects CIP's operating philosophy with over half allocated for regional research and collaboration. The thrust of work at headquarters is on breeding, genetics and taxonomy. No significant facilities are planned to be added. CIP's response to reduction in funding is to delay (or eliminate) efforts underway to establish and consolidate its regional presence in Asia (mainly China )and West Africa. The principal issue in CIP's program of work is that of the sweet potato program. IBPGR 50. Due to the delays in resolving the issues arising from the IBPGR's external reviews, the 1987 IBPGR program of work does not appear to fully "7 tO &cu^5> /f - 14 reflect the agreed changes in its direction. [However, as a medium-term solution is now available IBPGR may make a supplementary request.] The program has been reformulated to address the concerns of the external review. As mentioned in para.19 earlier, IBPGR has in 1986 substantially expanded research on in-vitro cultures. For 1987, the requests for increases cover plans to address genetic diversity, seed conservation and research on in-vitro methods of conservation. These additional investments amount to $0.3 m. Responses for reduction in funding are to reduce characterization and evaluation and miscellaneous small items. In view of the consensus reached only recently on the future of the IBPGR, at least for the next two years, the principal concern IBPGR's program is whether the proposal fully articulates the CGIAR needs. ICARDA 51. ICARDA's 1987 program of work signals that its construction and program build-up stage appears to be in a final phase. Although, the capital program will continue in 1987 to build houses and facilities. The 1987 proposals highlight ICARDA's plans to undertake a core-funded expansion of its Nile Valley project to wheat and barley. Other areas of expansion include seed health, GRU and continuing collaborative work with developed countries on plant protection. As to non-program items, an allocation is proposed for celebrating ICARDA's tenth anniversary. ICARDA's response to funding reduction will be to eliminate work on barley in Latin America and training. 52. ICARDA's program of work raises two sets of issues. The first relates to the long-term size and future of the [four] program areas, some of which are judged to be lower priority for the CGIAR in the strategy study. The need for continuing the capital program in 1987 and beyond should follow from that. The second set relates to the ICARDA's continuing difficulties in attracting full financial support from the CGIAR donors. Since ICARDA's inception, the World Bank has annually financed over [20%] of ICARDA's financial needs as a donor of last resort. In addition, execution of the 1986 program has only been possible due to substantial investment income earned by ICARDA. Both items indicate that the financial basis for its current size of operation is less than firm. Consequently, to ensure optimum payoff for the CGIAR investments, ICARDA may need guidance to develop a long-term sustainable program of research perhaps with fewer priorities than addressed at the present. ICRISAT 52. The 1987 proposals focus on the significant presence being established in Africa by ICRISAT. The program financed by special projects ($5 million in 1987) is for work on sorghum and millet in southern Africa and Mali. The entire 1987 review list reflects ICRISAT's plans to add research capacity in Africa mainly at the Sahelian center. In constructing its base proposal, ICRISAT also judged its training investments a lower priority and consequently proposes a restoration depending on funding availability. ICRISAT's capital program for 1987 is also sizable ($10.6 million including special projects) and proposes construction and equiping of facilities at 15 four African locations, in addition to the Sahelian center, as well as at the ICRISAT center in India, (Zimbabwe, Malawi, East African center and regional sorghum center in West Africa.) 53. Since major elements of the proposal appear to address the priorities established by the TAC it raises a broader question. ICRISAT has a portfolio of research problems which relate to the commodities and the continent targeted for increased attention. As a center, ICRISAT appears to be fully supported by financial contributions from donors. However, since the overall growth path for the system is modest, a clear signal needs to be provided to ICRISAT as to its own growth path . IFPRI 52. IFPRI's program of work proposes adding new elements to its two programs on development strategy and technology policy. Since policy work in the food production area has been accepted as a high priority for the CGIAR, there may not be substantive question as to the priority of IFPRI's overall program of work or the specific additional elements proposed for 1987. However, IFPRI has had to deal with financial stringency for the past several years and has yet to reach its desired staffing complement, These two opposing factors raise the question as to the extent to which TAC should make a special effort to influence donor funding of individual centers. IITA 53. The management changeover in IITA late last year has been significant in several aspects. In the first instance, a strategic study was initiated to define the long-term objectives of IITA's research although results will only be available in 1987. In the second place, a major financial problem was brought to light caused by excessive staffing and fiscal mismanagement, particularly of the capital program. IITA's program of work is constrained by these two major issues. 54. IITA expects a significant restructuring of its staff with major financial costs and proposes strengthening its management capacity to deal with its problems. It also estimates that staff need to be added in the interim to its root and tuber and farming systems programs to ensure program delivery. Finally, since the 1985 deficit completely wiped out its working capital, substantial funding is necessary to build working capital in 1987. All of these require additional resources of about $3.5 million, The issue in the 1987 IITA program is whether a substantial investment should be made ahead of the full discussion of IITA's new direction. ILCA 55. Since TAC will be discussing the external reviews at this meeting, the ILCA program of work may be somewhat preliminary at this stage. [ILCA plans to make a supplemental funding request to respond to the recommendations of the review.] ILCA proposes additional resources for its trypanosomiasis network and to supplement completion of special projects, for 16 its animal science work at headquarters as well as field work, The second dimension is the $1 m capital program proposed within the base, ILCA has also been a major beneficiary of World Bank funding as financing from other donors has not kept pace with the expansion in ILCA requirements in recent years. 56. Depending on the outcome of the TAC discussion of the external review, the 1987 ILCA program may need to be examined by TAC together with ILCA. An objective might be to narrowing the research focus so as to put in place a sustainable long-term research program. In the meanwhile, particularly in context of the planned management changes, it may be desirable to examine the prospects for a "holding" program including suspending additional capital investments until the broader issues are resolved. ILRAD 57. The 1987 program of work emphasizes three elements, all arising from the external reviews of ILRAD. The first element is the increase proposed for the trypanosomiasis program to address approaches of chemotherapy and trypanotolerance mechanisms. The second is ILRAD's plan to launch a three scientist cowdriosis program. And the third is the construction and equipment requirements of both ILRAD and the housing provided in Nairobi to other CGIAR centers. In addition to these, in 1987 ILRAD would also expand the socio-economic work launched in 1986 to study that dimension of its disease control work. 58. In March TAC appeared to disagree with ILRAD's assessment on the cost of undertaking the cowdriosis work. In its discussion of priorities the CGIAR appears to have decided against a major expansion of resources for livestock diseases. TAC should now provide guidance to ILRAD as to the future level of investments in its work on diseases. The socio-economic work fits in with the strategic assessments on CGIAR priorities. The inter-center housing issue has systemwide implications depending on the conclusions of the Africa task force of the TAC/CGIAR. IRRI 59. IRRI is undergoing its own strategic planning exercise which should be completed in time for the 1988 program of work. In 1987, therefore, it proposes only one additional activity. As in the case of CIMMYT, IRRI plans to add a geneticist to its staff to expand the application of these techniques in genetic enhancement. IRRI has also made changes in its program to better address issues related to sustainability as well as the training area. As to special projects, the level of activity appears to have slowed down to a level of $2.4 million from almost $7 million in 1985. 60. IRRI has posed its capital requirements as a main issue in 1987. As one of the older centers, IRRI is particularly exposed to substantial financial requirements for maintenance of its aging capital stock. The proposals are for renovating laboratories. At the same time, however, IRRI proposes to construct a greenhouse and purchase additional equipment. This is obviously a major issue since IRRI's response to funding reductions would 17 be to delay substantial replacement equipment purchases. IRRI's priorities appear to be to add new equipment before replacements and maintenance, which is an important issue in the 1987 IRRI proposal. ISNAR 61. ISNAR's program of work appears to respond fully to the recommendations of the external review and discussion in both TAC and the CGIAR. ISNAR states that it accepts the need to strengthen its research function and has already taken the steps. It proposes a medium term perspective to reach staffing of 30 from the current level of 24. Three of the six incrementals staffyears are proposed for 1987. Resources are also to be added to undertake an expanded training function. 62. The issue of the optimum size of ISNAR , its medium term perspective , can only be addressed after reviewing the full extent of the program under the new resource allocation process. For 1987 the main issue is judging the appropriateness of the ISNAR proposal, Another issue is that of financial support. ISNAR has had to deal with financial stringency in recent years and the current dollar exchange rate has significantly increased its costs of operation. Until funding patterns alter to reflect this, ISNAR is likely to be constrained. This is particularly relevant for 1987 when ISNAR needs a funding increase of over 25% from the 1986 level to deliver its proposed programs. WARDA 63. Due to the substantive changes being discussed regarding future rice research in West Africa, WARDA was not asked to prepare a 1987 proposal. Table of Contents Page No. Introduction Section I: Financial summary and limiting considerations 1 Section II: 1987 Program and budget issues 3 Section III: Center-specific comments on center proposals 13 Attachments Attachment la: Review list of items for additions in real terms lb: Review list of items for reduction if 1987 funding is below 1986 in real terms Attachment 2: Review list of individual centers Annexes Annex I: Key financial information on proposals for core funding (1983-1987) Annex II: 1983-1987 summary of program expenditures for core activities Annex III: 1983-1987 summary of progiram expenditures for core and non-core activities Background Documents 1. 1987 Resource allocation guidelines (December 1985) 2. 1987 TAC review process (March 1986) 3. Financial matters (June 1986)