CGIAR Fund Council 
 
 
March 7-8, 2012 
 
BMGF, Seattle, Washington 
 
 
 
Meeting Summary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CGIAR Fund Office 
April 18, 2012 
 
 
  
Agenda Item 1.  Opening Session 
 
The CGIAR Fund Council (FC) met at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) Headquarters, 
Seattle, Washington, USA on March 7 and 8, 2012.  Fund Council Chair Rachel Kyte opened the 
meeting.  She welcomed the following Fund Council members and representatives of Fund Donors 
attending the FC meeting for the first time: Kevin Cleaver, Associate Vice-President, Programmes, 
IFAD; Philippe Thevenoux, Directorate General DEVCO, European Commission; S.K. Datta, Deputy 
Director General Crop Sciences, ICAR; and Faisal Awawdeh, President, AARINENA. A full list of 
meeting participants is shown in Annex 1. 
 
Prabhu Pingali, Deputy Director, Agricultural Development, BMGF was elected Co-Chair of the 
meeting. 
 
In accordance with the FC Rules of Procedure, the Chair reminded the Fund Council members to 
declare any conflicts of interest regarding Fund Council business and agenda items. 
 
The following items were added under Agenda 15, Any Other Business: 
 Update on the situation in Japan one year after the earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 
2011; 
 Readout from Alan Tollervey on his attendance at the latest Consortium Board Meeting; 
 BMGF, along with DfID and EC, requested a discussion on the arrangements for financing 
ex-post impact assessments; 
 The Consortium Board requested an information item on ICARDA’s contingency plan in 
light of recent events in Syria; 
 EIARD requested information on the plan and process for deciding the 2013-15 Fund 
Council composition;  
 Selection of future venues for FC meetings. 
 
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the above items. 
 
Agenda  Item 2.  Fund Office Report and Follow-up Actions 
 
Jonathan Wadsworth, Executive Secretary of the Fund Council and Head of the Fund Office (FO) 
presented the FO report. The focus of the presentation was on the performance of the Fund in its 
first full year of operation.  The following were highlighted: 
 Since initiation in December 2010 the Fund received a total of $378.8 m through the three 
windows and provisional account, and disbursed $251.3 m leaving a balance of $127.5 m in 
the account to start work in the first quarter of 2012.  This accounted for over 50% of the 
CGIAR budget which is a significant achievement. 
 Receipts in the Fund were projected at $348 m at the start of 2011, and $437 m at the end of 
the year.  Three donors were unable to finalize their contribution agreements before the 
end of the year, resulting in a short fall below expectations of about $52.1 m.   
 Half of the funding was received in the last three months of 2011, which impacted on 
decision making.  Funding decisions made at mid-year were based on receipt expectations 
of $283m, while decisions made two months later were based on expectations of  $403 m, 
reflecting the wide variance of available information, on which decisions were based. 
 Window 1 received the bulk of the inflows (67%), with smaller amounts received in 
Windows 2 (13%) and 3 (17%).  Thus, the Fund was operating with two-thirds of the 
money from Window 1.   End of year balances were $93.2 m in Window 1, $20.9 m in 
2 
 
Window 2, $1.4 m in Window 3, and $11.9 m in the provisional account, for a total available 
balance of $127.5 m. 
 Looking forward, projected requirement of approved CRP budgets is approximately $100 m 
per quarter.  Thus, using the 2011 pattern of inflows, the Fund balance could reach zero 
around June 2012. 
 Donors were requested to provide their contributions early in the year in order to avoid 
cash flow issues, particularly as it is expected that the rest of the approved CRPs would go 
on stream in 2012. 
 The 2% CSP on Windows 1, 2 and 3 raised $7.45 m, and an additional $1.15 m was raised by 
charging 2% on a number of bilateral projects by the Consortium.  However, there was a 
slight under recovery of $50,000 to cover the four System Entities’ costs which amounted to 
$14.3 m in 2011 with $5.65 m financed from sources other than W1. 
 In 2012, the overall budget of System Entities will be higher at $16.6 m due to the inclusion 
of GCARD2 and IEA start-up; furthermore, other sources of funding are expected to be lower 
than in 2011. The CSP in 2012 has been determined to be 2% based on the agreed 
mechanism described in the Common Operational Framework. Due to the large number of 
legacy bilateral projects that do not cover the CSP, under recovery on bilateral funding is 
likely to continue into 2012 with consequences for the 2013 CSP charge rate.   
 2012 is the third and final year of the inaugural Fund Council.  The Fund Office will carry 
out an assessment on which to base the FC composition for the period 2013-2015. It will be 
done in consultation with FC members.  This item was discussed further under ‘Any Other 
Business.’ 
 
Agenda Item 3. Consortium Report 
 
The Consortium Board (CB) Chair, Carlos Perez del Castillo, reminded the Fund Council that the 
written report of the CB had been circulated ahead of the meeting. His presentation included 
updates on activities since distribution of the report. 
 
Highlights mentioned were: 
 The CGIAR Consortium was granted international organization status on March 2, 2012 
with the signature of Denmark.  The CB Chair thanked Denmark, a strong supporter of the 
CGIAR and the host of the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) CRP.  He 
encouraged country members of the Fund Council to sign the agreement and show their 
support to the Consortium Board. 
 The Executive Committee of the Consortium Board that was formed in 2010 to temporarily 
undertake the functions of the CEO immediately commenced the selection of a new CEO.  
Four candidates were interviewed from a slate of 20 long listed candidates, of which 2 were 
invited to make presentations at the Consortium Board Meeting recently held in 
Montpellier.  The CB expects to arrive at a decision soon. 
 The Consortium Board created four committees for the purpose of improving 
communications, transparency and governance within the CGIAR.  The Nominations and 
Evaluation Committee will evaluate the practices of the Consortium Board.  Centers will 
participate and provide comments on the operations and effectiveness of the Consortium 
Board.  The report is expected by end April. 
 The Committee is also charged with proposing a staggered rotation plan for the Consortium 
Board as members’ the terms end in 2012.  The Centers will vote on the slate proposed by 
the Nominations and Evaluation Committee.   
3 
 
 The Consortium working group on intellectual assets has worked very closely with the FC 
Working Group and the CB is pleased to report that the two working groups reached 
consensus on a delicate package which has been endorsed by all the CGIAR Centers.  The CB 
Chair stressed that this agreement can be revisited in the light of lessons learned at a later 
date, however it was an important step forward to have this agreement as a basis for 
ongoing work. 
 A Senior Gender Adviser is now on board and is working very closely with all CRPs. An 
agricultural research network on gender has been established with all 15 Centers 
participating and lead scientists on gender are coordinating the gender strategy in 13 of the 
15 CRPs. The intention is to mainstream the gender strategy across all Centers and   the 
System to harmonize gender strategies in all CRPs. 
 The CB Chair informed FC of the Consortium Board’s participation in the Steering 
Committee of the Joint Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) 
along with development partners such as USAID, EC, World Bank, African Union, and Forum 
on Agricultural Research for Africa (FARA).  It is expected to provide a framework to 
intensify coordination and alignment between CGIAR and CAADP.  
 The Consortium Board has submitted a proposal prepared by the GCARD2 Organizing 
Committee responding to specific comments of the CB and reflecting concerns raised at the 
last FC meeting.  The proposal includes a revised draft program and a new budget request 
($900,000) of just over half of the original proposal submitted at FC6 in Rome.  
 
Discussion: 
 Members inquired whether the Action Plan of the SRF, promised in Montpellier in 2010, 
would be presented at Uruguay and wished to know how the Action Plan will be derived. 
The CB Chair informed that work is underway on the Action Plan which will be presented at 
GCARD2 and at the Funders Forum.  Between now and June 2012, the ISPC will collaborate 
in this work, specifically on foresight studies, better links between SLOs (System Level 
Objectives) and CRPs, and  prioritization across CRPs. A first draft is expected by June, 
primarily for circulation to GFAR to enable them to hold regional consultations before the 
Action Plan is finalized. 
 On the question of when the FC agreed that the Fund would provide resources for GCARD2 
and whether the funding would be from Window 1 and 2 or from alternative sources, it was 
clarified that GCARD was always considered a part of the structure of the 2 pillar system 
and there was always the expectation to fund it as discussed at FC6.  The CSP amount would 
defray what was considered the appropriate share of CGIAR costs.  
 It was further clarified that a revised budget for GCARD2 was received very recently with a 
proposed contribution of $900,000 from the CGIAR Fund. As $800,000 was the contribution 
FC had agreed to at FC6 in Rome, the additional $100,000 could be entertained, but on a 
performance basis.  The quality control on the most relevant choice of participants and on 
the alignment of the agenda with CGIAR needs is left to the Consortium Board. 
 Fund Members expressed satisfaction on the forward movement of the gender strategy and 
requested information on the consultation process moving forward. The CB Chair informed 
that the consultations will be initiated in the very near future.  He undertook to provide FC 
members with the planned dates and modality of the consultation.  
 
Agenda items 4, 5, and 6 were chaired by Prabhu Pingali, co-chair of the meeting. 
 
 
 
4 
 
Agenda Item 4. 2011 System Entities Budget and Expenditures  
 
Phillip Chiverton, Convener of the Peer Review Team (PRT), informed FC members that the 2011 
Budget and Expenditures provided a snapshot of actual expenses of the System Entities based on 
the 2011 budget that was approved by the FC in 2010.  He reminded Members that at FC6 the PRT 
was encouraged to design a common budget table template.  Hence, the 2011 System Entities 
Budget and Expenditures was a retro-fit of expenditures in a common budget template.   
 
The PRT felt that the common budget template was helpful.  It would require further work on 
common sub-items, particularly overhead charges.  It was agreed by the System Entities to look at 
the CGIAR financial guidelines being followed by Centers and use it as a basis for defining overhead 
expenditures. 
 
Discussion: 
 On the question of whether the present level of the ISPC budget is justifiable now that most 
CRPs have been approved, ISPC Chair, Ken Cassman clarified that ISPC has four roles, of 
which the review of CRPs is one.  In the recent past, the role of ex-ante program evaluation 
constituted 90% of the new ISPC’s efforts.  However, the other roles in strategy and trends, 
mobilization of science and impact assessment through SPIA which is an integral part of the 
ISPC also feed back into the ability to perform high quality ex-ante evaluation.   He pointed 
out that the mobilization of science, strategy and trends, and impact assessment are the 
existing components of the ISPC work plan geared to the overall improvement of the 
CGIAR..  He added that the ISPC has a constructive program laid out for 2012 and into 2013 
with much more collaboration with the Consortium Office, and that, in his view, the ISPC 
budget is fully justified. 
 
Agenda Item 5.Efficiency Measures of System Entities 
 
Phillip Chiverton reminded FC members that there had been discussion on the importance of 
efficiency measures in the CGIAR System.  At FC6 the PRT was charged to review efficiency 
measures for the three System Entities.  An in-depth teleconference on the subject took place on 
March 1, 2012 and a draft score card was produced by the Fund Office under the categories of 
Financial, Internal Business, Learning & Growth, and Client.  For each category goals, performance 
measures and targets were identified.  
 
The other System Entities may have different performance measures for each of the above four 
categories.  The PRT opined that the scorecard model is a good one and the next step will be to 
develop scorecards for the Consortium Office and the ISPC Secretariat. The Fund Office will further 
work on its scorecard in consultation with the other System Entities.  
 
Discussion: 
 It was clarified that the Fund Office scorecard was a draft and that some of the targets were 
based on the World Bank Group’s corporate benchmarks.  It was felt that the FC collectively 
needs to agree on performance measures for the three System Entities that are useful to 
monitor. 
 The Consortium Office pointed out that the System Entities require guidance on FC’s 
expectations to identify a common set of performance measures. More discussion and 
consultation are required to build a robust system.   
 Members expressed caution on expectations regarding required performance measures.  
Some Members pointed out that survey results of an expanded universe of clients on 
5 
 
services provided, and the proportion of the total budget going to the system entities vis-a-
vis research were the most important measures. 
 
Conclusion: 
 The PRT will put together draft scorecards for the Consortium Office, Fund Office and ISPC 
Secretariat and share them with the FC for comment by May 15, 2012. 
 
Agenda Item 6.  CRP Budgets and Expenditures 
 
CGIAR Consortium Financial Report for 2011 – Gordon MacNeil, Director of Finance and 
Corporate Services at the Consortium Office presented this item. 
 
The following were highlighted: 
 The focus of the Financial Report was on Center activities only. 
 The CGIAR works on a calendar year and preliminary 2011 results from the Centers is now 
available. However, it is very early in 2012 to expect firm data from the Centers.     
 There was considerable additional funding available in 2011.  The relatively slow 
implementation of CRPs combined with the stability funding policy constrained the Center 
activities at 2010 levels. 
 The relatively modest uptake of funding in 2011 has a positive influence on 2012 because 
the Fund is holding a large balance that can be drawn on in the first months of 2012. 
 Comparison of 2010 and 2011 overall results reflects the growth rate in revenues, including 
challenge programs, at 11-12% over 2010; 
 The components of  the 2011 financing were: 
o CRPs for which Window 1 and Window 2 funds and bilateral funding was employed 
(bilateral funding is defined to be a mixture of Window 3 and pure bilateral funding 
outside the CGIAR fund); 
o Genebanks which were funded entirely through  Window 1; 
o Non-CGIAR Research Program activity which was financed by unrestricted and 
bilateral funding.  This category comprises of all research done outside the CRP 
portfolio.  
o Stability Funding which compensated for the loss of Centers’ core funding prior to 
CRP start up through the year. 
 Five CRPs were operational in 2011(Aquatic Systems, Maize, GRiSP, Forestry and CCAFS); 
 It was realized that a new set of annual reports is required to provide the transparency in 
financial reporting that has been agreed to in all parts of the System.  The final report, which 
is expected to be issued within two months, will have disaggregated information. 
 In 2011 not all CRPs were operational. The System therefore required a safety net that 
guaranteed a flow of resources equal to the level of 2010 unrestricted funding ($208.6 m). 
Up to $102.6 m was approved from Windows 1 & 2 ($82.6 m of which was disbursed) for 
the year implying that the other $106 m came from a combination of CRP funds and those 
that were received by Centers outside of Windows 1 & 2.  
 Centers continue to experience problems on negotiations with donors on full cost financing.  
In order to move forward on this, the Consortium would like to undertake a review in 2012 
of three aspects:  
o specific donor policies and experience based on 2011 results; 
o obtain very clear information on the cost structures, the overhead rates, direct cost 
rates at the Center level and put it into simple language;  
6 
 
o obtain comparative information because some donors perceive the CGIAR to be 
inefficient and comparator information is required to elucidate on this perception. 
 
Discussion: 
 Members endorsed the Consortium’s suggestion to carry out  three reviews and welcomed 
clarity on full cost recovery and  the overhead rates charged by Centers;   
 Members commented that Centers follow very different methodologies in costing overhead 
charges, which at times appears to result in excessively high rates; 
 The Consortium informed members that overhead rates are going down because the 
centers are modernizing and improving their cost recovery systems, and are using rigorous 
cost accounting methodology to assign direct costs and overheads appropriately; 
 The Consortium agreed to provide the information requested by members regarding 
disaggregated financial information on how CRPs overall are resourced, and mapping of 
bilateral funding to CRPs for 2012, and if possible for 2011;  
 In response to Members’ request for clarification on the full cost recovery charge for 
transferring funds between Centers or to outside partners, it was conceded that the issue 
was difficult to resolve.  The Finance Director assured Members that Centers were not 
adding overhead on top of overhead, and committed to change the policy or write it in a 
way that is easily understood; 
 Members requested a one pager for each center showing the source of funding from 
Windows 1, 2, 3, and bilateral funding related to each CRP and bilateral funding non-related 
to CRPs; 
  Members inquired about   movements in staffing levels which represent a large proportion 
of fixed costs in the CGIAR at the System level, specifically whether this has increased or 
decreased as a result of the reform process.  It was clarified that staffing numbers are going 
up given the growth of the programs.  Such information will be available in the annual 
financial report.  The final 2011 Financial Report is expected to be available in July 2012. 
 
Process for CSP Amount Collection from Centers on Bilateral Funding - Gordon MacNeil also 
presented the process for collecting the Cost Sharing Percentage (CSP) amount on bilateral funding 
and an update on the CSP amount recovered from Centers in 2011. 
 
The following points were highlighted: 
 Need for a common understanding of what the issue is and a shared commitment to end the 
unbalanced responsibility of paying the system cost; 
 Recognition by donors that full implementation of the original procedure is not immediately 
possible due to the large proportion of the legacy bilateral portfolio, i.e. projects started 
before 2011 which the Consortium has exempted from CSP collection, hence an interim 
compromise is required; 
 Ability to accelerate the internal cost recovery procedures and lower overhead rates so that  
the additional CSP can be accommodated within a total that is acceptable to all parties; 
 Need for a policy, a plan for way forward and a timetable accepted by all parties; 
 Restricted funding is the restricted grant total that qualified for collection of the CSP, 
because it was negotiated between the Centres and the Consortium Office after January 1, 
2011; 
 Not all Centers were able to submit the CSP (2% in 2011) even from the small fraction of 
non-legacy programs.  The total resources collected were $1.15 m from non-Fund grants, 
including both unrestricted and restricted.   
7 
 
 In 2012 system costs are projected at $14-15 m (excluding costs of IEA and GCARD2) and 
CGIAR funding is expected to be approximately $ 750 to $800 m; resultant CSP range is 
therefore about 2%.  However, since a significant quantity of direct bilateral funds will 
continue not to pay their  CSP contributions, and a lower proportion of systems costs will be 
met from sources other than Window 1, the CSP collected will not cover the full CSP 
requirement.in 2012.  
 
Discussion: 
 On the question of the One Corporate System (OCS), the Consortium clarified that it is an 
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) tool which will be a financial system, a human 
resources management system and a project management system. It is presently in the 
design stage.  Ten Centers and the Consortium Office have already signed up for it. All 
Centers but one will adopt the OCS as a common system for chart of accounts structures and 
financial reporting, making things simpler to administer and track. 
 Members commented that the implication of the CSP figures for 2012 is that the system 
charge will be above 2% for Windows 1 and 2 donors because large components of total 
funding are for legacy projects which do not pay the full costs.  Members requested to be 
informed of the projected percentage in the next two years. 
 
Conclusions: 
 Consortium will provide FC a short document that provides an explanation of the One 
Corporate System. 
 Consortium will provide an estimate of long term projections to see how quickly CSP collection 
will reach a stable situation. 
 Consortium will look at legacy projects to ascertain if full cost recovery principles can be 
implemented. 
 
2012 CRP Financing Plan - Gordon MacNeil presented a summary of the 2012 CRP level financing 
plan.  He highlighted the following points: 
 The assumption is that all 15 CRPS will be operational in 2012 for a whole 12 months.  This 
includes those CRPs that have not yet been fully approved as the Joint Agreement makes 
allowance for back dating CRP requests for funding by 6 months.  
 The financing plan does not include funds for gene banks or the system costs, both of which 
are financed separately but from the same sources of funding as CRPs.  However this report 
deals specifically with CRPs. 
 Based on CRP proposals that FC has approved or is in process of approving, the CRP  
financial requirement in 2012 is $809 m of which 400 m will come from Windows 1 and 2; 
 A harmonization process looking at differential assumptions in management costs of CRPs 
and a reasonable trajectory of demand of Windows 1 and 2 funding in 2012 will lead to a 
better allocation process in 2013.  The harmonization outcome will start with the actual 
resources for 2012 and the approach should assist the Consortium to better plan for CRP 
resource allocation in future years assuming, among other things, future financing 
information will become more stable and predictable.    
 Based on an allocation model to establish Window 1 and 2 distribution plan for 2012, all 
CRPs will receive at least 72% of their budget in 2012 estimated on currently available 
resources; 
 For GRiSP and CCAFS the year 2 allocation was maintained at year 1 level as both CRPs were 
approved at a growth level in 2010; 
 All Centers have accepted the results of the model. 
8 
 
Discussion: 
 Members requested to see the breakdown  of inflows from Windows 1, 2  and  3, as it would 
provide transparency on the balance of the funding; 
 It was clarified that the genebank funding is not included in the funding plan for CRPs in 
2012, but will be included in the total requirement from Windows 1 and 2; 
 It was clarified that the Generation Challenge Program is the only Challenge Program that 
will continue to receive exceptional funding for an additional two years, i.e. 2012 and 2013; 
 On the question of the reduced level of funding established for CRPs in 2012, it was clarified 
that all contracts contain the clause that the contracted amounts are subject to availability 
of funding and hence would not require amendment to the contracts; 
 Members commented that programs that were approved later than others have a lower 
funding rate and wondered if stability funding will be provided to the CRPs that have a 
higher unfunded components.   
 Members queried whether the reduction in CRP budgets in 2012 would affect the 
contracted deliverables.  It was explained that it may take longer to achieve the results.  The 
Consortium would do some modeling to see what the long term effect would be with the 
reduction in resources to CRPs in 2012. This would also depend on how much Window 3 
and bilateral resources go into supporting the work of the CRPs. 
 On the question of re-prioritization of research objectives of FC-approved CRPs, 
deliverables may need to be revised. The ISPC Chair pointed out that ISPC has identified 
within CRPs those components that looked less likely to succeed or weaker in terms of 
quality of science.  Hence, there is some basis of re-prioritization, if required.   
 
Conclusion: 
 Consortium will provide a breakdown of inflows between Windows 1, 2 and 3. While revising 
the budgets to fit available funding is helpful, there may be an instance down the line where 
the FC may wish to allow the projected rate of growth to be maintained.  Hence, a mechanism 
needs to be put into place for the FC to opine on the allocation of funding to CRP budgets. 
 
Agenda Item 7. CRP1.2 Proposal (Revised):  Humidtropics 
 
The CRP1.2 proposal was introduced by the Consortium Board Chair and presented by Nteranya 
Sanginga, Director General of IITA (the Lead Center).   
 
The ISPC Chair gave a summary of the ISPC’s written commentary previously circulated to the Fund 
Council. The commentary noted that “the proposal still requires substantial revision before it is 
considered adequate as a proposal for a long-term research program.” The ISPC recommended approval 
for SRT1 activities for 18 months only, with resubmission to the ISPC after 12 months.   
 
Discussion: 
 FC members appreciated the improvement made in the revised CRP1.2 proposal relative to 
the previous version; however, there was also broad agreement with the ISPC’s assessment 
that the proposal still requires substantial revisions;  
 Members were pleased with integration of the SSA Challenge Program (CP) and the CIALCA 
project into CRP1.2; there are lessons to be learned from the SSA CP’s innovation platform 
sites; 
 The proposed partnerships with non-CGIAR institutions were welcomed but would need 
further enhancement;   
9 
 
 There was support for the program’s geographical scope with dominant focus on the 
tropical humid lowlands but also reaching out to the sub-humid tropics and tropical 
highlands; this view differed from ISPC’s recommendation; 
 The proposal should elaborate on the extent to which the proposed integrated approach to 
sustainable intensification of humid tropical systems differs from the earlier farming 
systems research and extension (FSRE) approaches and integrated agricultural and rural 
development initiatives; it should take into consideration the lessons learned from the long 
years of experience of IITA in FSRE in the humid tropical lowlands as pointed out by ISPC; 
 There is a need to clarify at what point the CGIAR should hand off the program activities to 
national programs; 
 The trade-offs between production intensification and environmental sustainability should 
be articulated; 
 Clarify the relationships with or contributions of the other CRPs; 
 On the budget, a justification for high level of overhead cost component was requested. 
 
Proposed CRP1.2 Budget and Financing 
 
(in $ million) 
 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 
Windows 1&2 69.192 19.508 23.670 26.013 
Window 3 & Bilateral 75.225 26.835 24.306 24.084 
Total 144.417 46.343 47.976 50.097 
 
 
Conclusions: 
  FC thanked Nteranya Sanginga for presenting the revised CRP 1.2 proposal and responding to 
questions and comments from FC members. 
 FC Chair thanked the ISPC for its comments and recommendation on the proposal. She noted 
that the recommendation was a variation of the categories of decision that were previously 
agreed upon for the CRP proposals. She asked the Fund Council to consider a more 
manageable approval process for CRP1.2, i.e. to decide to fully approve the proposal, approve 
it with conditions, or reject it.  
 FC’s decision on the proposal is presented in the conclusions under Agenda Item 12.  
 
Agenda Item 8.  CRP1.1 Proposal sub-component (Agrobiodiversity) 
 
The Agrobiodiversity proposal was introduced by the Consortium Board Chair and presented by 
Emile Frison, Director General of Bioversity.  
 
The ISPC Chair gave a summary of the ISPC’s written commentary previously circulated to the Fund 
Council. The ISPC recommended that the proposal be rejected (Category IV) for the following 
reasons: 
 
1) the proposal does not fit as a stand-alone component within CRP1.1 to which it is only 
peripherally related; 
2) the scientific justification and quality of the proposed work is weak; and 
3) the plausibility of impact is low.” 
 
10 
 
However, the ISPC commentary noted that “the CGIAR has a role to play in research on in situ 
conservation and use of agrobiodiversity, but continued effort is needed to define this role and 
develop the research in a manner that supports the CGIAR reform.” In ISPC’s view, the Consortium 
Board is in a position to provide leadership in developing a unified CGIAR approach to genetic 
resources and global and regional arrangements for genetic resources conservation, research and 
policy. 
 
Discussion: 
 There was broad agreement among FC members about the importance/value of in situ 
conservation and management of agricultural biodiversity and a recognition that  the CGIAR 
has a significant role to play in it;    
 FC members generally share the ISPC comments on the scientific quality of the proposal, the 
lack of clear impact pathways and specified contribution to the CGIAR system level objectives, 
and the insufficient opening of participation to partners, including those in academia;  
 The lack of fit within  CRP 1.1 was raised as a major issue; a clear compelling demand for the 
services offered was not articulated;   
 There was a question of whether adequate consideration was given to embedding the 
proposed program within the CRP3 portfolio or in other CRPs; it was suggested that that the 
Consortium Board should review the positioning of the agrobiodiversity proposal;   
 Some FC members also suggested exploration of the possibility of combining the in situ 
conservation and research activities with those of the ex situ activities proposed by CGDT into a 
CRP on genetic resources; such a CRP is envisioned to provide leadership, coherence and support 
to strengthening the in situ activities within the existing CRPs and identify and address gaps 
through partnership and targeted funding;  
 There was also a suggestion to integrate in situ conservation work within the commodity 
CRPs, arguing that a closer link between conservation and usage of genetic resources should 
be built in; 
 The public good research to be done by the centers concerned needs to be made clear 
relative to what the national programs are able to provide;  
 In responding to some of the comments,  Emile Frison pointed out that: 
o there has been strong demand for in situ conservation from partners in the South 
(e.g. FARA, APAARI and AARINENA); 
o the international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture has 
relevance in terms of policy to both ex situ and in situ;  
o the important role of work in the universities is recognized; the CGIAR’s 
contribution is to translate the theoretical work into methodology that can be 
applied to conservation work; 
o it is important to maintain coherence in the program; there is doubt that the 
recommendation to divide the work into small pieces in different CRPs would be 
able to deliver the desired results; the fact that in situ conservation was not included 
in the specific crop CRPs that have been approved is an indication that it would not 
work;  
o a lot of the details are still to be developed in the process of implementation. 
 
Conclusions: 
 FC thanked Emile Frison for presenting the Agrobiodiversity proposal and responding to 
questions and comments from FC members. 
 FC Chair summed up the key points made as follows:  
11 
 
o there was agreement that in situ conservation is important; so important that it has 
not been integrated into the crop CRPs up to this point; 
o some issues related to technical merits were raised by the ISPC but were not 
considered to be stumbling block to the reconsideration of in situ research in an 
alternative arrangement;  
o the main question was  where should the work be located; options mentioned were 
CRP2, CRP3 portfolio, or combined with the genebank program into one CRP on 
genetic resources; 
o any proposal should address more specifically the comparative advantage of the 
CGIAR in undertaking this work; 
o the Consortium Board should play a role in addressing some of the key questions 
raised.  
 FC’s decision on the proposal is presented in the conclusions under Agenda Item 12. 
 
Agenda Item 9.  CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets 
 
Jonathan Wadsworth framed the discussion on this agenda item. He pointed out that the document 
“CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets” or “CGIAR IA Principles” tabled for 
consideration at FC7 was the product of many months of Fund Office-facilitated negotiation 
between an IA working group of the Consortium (composed of representatives from Consortium 
Board, Consortium Office, and Centers) and a group of Fund Donors (World Bank, USAID, BMGF, 
EIARD, FAO, Australia, Japan, and CIDA). It reflected a compromise that “balances trust and Center 
autonomy with accountability and transparency.” He also pointed out that the Consortium Board 
approved the CGIAR IA Principles on March 1 for inclusion in the Common Operational Framework 
(COF), and that consequently, if the document were also approved by the Fund Council for inclusion 
in the COF, it would be effective immediately (and immediately incorporated by reference in the 
COF). 
 
Discussion: 
 FC members expressed appreciation for and applauded the cooperation of all concerned 
(i.e. Consortium/ centers and donors) that enabled the process to move forward and 
produce a version of the CGIAR IA Principles document that was ready for consideration by 
the Fund Council; 
 It was specifically highlighted that what has been achieved would assist the CGIAR System 
in pursuing public-private sector partnerships that are critical to agricultural research for 
development;  
 Most of the FC members expressed support for the approval of the CGIAR IA principles as 
presented; however a few did raise some issues or concerns;  
 Expressing concerns on the text of paragraph 2.4 of Annex 1 of the CGIAR IA Principles 
document, CIDA pointed out the “current authority of its grants does not extend to funding 
and expenditures the objective of which is to fend off legal action or address threats of legal 
action. As such should there be a legal action or a threat of legal action, and should the Fund 
Council decide to make expenditures to address the problem, CIDA could not make any 
financial contribution to that end unless and until it has secured additional financial and 
program authorizations.” In a response to these concerns, it was pointed out that the spirit 
of the language used in the aforementioned paragraph emphasizes the need for the Fund 
Council, Consortium and Center concerned to work in concert to address any potential legal 
action or threat of legal action in the worst case scenario of breach of confidentiality 
obligation; funders are not committing to any financial restitution.  
12 
 
 FAO expressed the view that the Principles were not ready for adoption. The concerns were 
on the question of authority of the Consortium to unilaterally approve any deviations to the 
Research and Emergency Exemptions by the Centers and on the level of transparency in 
connection with the “high level report” from the Consortium to the Fund Council.  FAO 
clarified that it would not oppose a consensus on the CGIAR IA Principles. However, it 
requested that its concerns be reflected verbatim in the meeting summary. The full text of 
FAO’s statement is presented in Annex 2.  
 The chair of EIARD, on behalf of the constituency of European donors, indicated that EIARD 
members had reached a consensus to support the adoption of the proposed CGIAR 
Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets even though several European donors 
are still concerned about the content of this text. In particular, EIARD strongly regrets that 
the last "Whereas" (page 1) has been changed from its initial wording, i.e.: "Whereas these 
CGIAR IA Principles shall not be interpreted or applied in a way that infringes on 
fundamental human rights…", to a less committing "Whereas these CGIAR IA Principles are 
intended to be consistent with fundamental human rights…". 
 Expressing concerns on behalf of its small farmer and civil society constituencies, GFAR 
pointed to two issues: 1) ensuring the transparency of the high level reporting process, on 
which it agreed with the comments made by FAO; and 2) addressing the gap in the 
treatment of farmers’ rights in the CGIAR IA Principles document. While it did not wish to 
delay the adoption of the CGIAR IA principles, GFAR was expecting that the development of 
implementing guidelines and the learning period allowed would provide an opportunity to 
satisfactorily resolve the transparency issue and the specific recognition of the farmers' 
rights implications in the CGIAR Principles. GFAR also noted the issue of limited capacity of 
many national systems to deal with intellectual assets issues in their own right. It urged the 
CGIAR to revisit the capacity development service function provided by the former Central 
Advisory Service on IP (CAS-IP). 
 In responding to a request for further clarification on the reasons for possible restrictions of 
CGIAR IAs to global accessibility, the FC Chair pointed to a set of examples described in a 
document provided by the Consortium/Centers; 
 The importance of formulating a clear set of implementing guidelines was emphasized to 
address the observation that the CGIAR IA Principles document does not elaborate on “how” 
the stated principles will be operationalized. The principles concerning “farmers’ rights” 
were specifically highlighted; 
 It was recommended that the Consortium should immediately reflect on its communication 
strategy relating to the CGIAR IA Principles. 
 
Decision: 
 The Fund Council adopted the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets 
as part of the COF for an interim period of two reporting cycles beginning in 2012 to allow 
learning from the evidence base.  In reaching this decision, the Fund Council noted the 
following:  
o The Consortium and Centers are committed to using their best efforts to making their 
Limited Exclusivity Agreements and Restricted Use Agreements  publicly available key 
information about their Limited Exclusivity Agreements and Restricted Use 
Agreements within a policy of transparency which is only limited by the need to 
protect legitimate research partner interests in proprietary technology (e.g., 
regulatory or non-patentable technology), trade secrets and competitively sensitive 
commercial terms; 
13 
 
o The Consortium agrees to maintain a publicly accessible consolidated register or 
platform of all publicly disclosed information on all Limited Exclusivity Agreements 
and Restricted Use Agreements entered into by Centers including press releases, web 
notices, blogs, and solicited (public) correspondence;  
o The Consortium will develop Implementation Guidelines that are coherent and fully 
consistent with the agreed CGIAR IA Principles and will be shared with the Fund 
Council for information. 
 
Agenda Item 10.  Proposal for Long-term Support of CGIAR Genebanks 
 
The proposal for long-term support of CGIAR genebanks (In Trust for the International Community: 
Plan and Partnership for Managing and Sustaining CGIAR-held Collections of Plant Genetic Resources) 
was introduced by the Consortium Board Chair and presented by Cary Fowler, Executive Director of 
the Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT). 
 
The ISPC Chair gave a summary of the ISPC’s written commentary previously circulated to the Fund 
Council. The ISPC recommended that the proposal be approved, pointing out that the long-term 
sustainability of genebank management and funding is critical to the success of the CGIAR. The 
commentary also suggested that the Consortium Board and the GCDT need to review the growth 
and adequacy of the endowment fund being developed to support ex situ conservation of crop 
genetic resources. 
 
Discussion: 
 There was general recognition of the need to intensify efforts to secure the required 
endowment to put the genebanks on a more solid footing in terms of funding;   
 It was suggested that the Consortium should explore the possibility to add to the current 
GCDT Genebank proposal some of the in situ agrobiodiversity conservation activities, 
combining both ex situ and in situ into a broader CRP; 
 Some members sought greater clarity on the management structure, how decisions are 
being taken on eligibility of Centers for Trust funding of genebanks, and on flow of funds;  
 For GCDT’s campaign to increase the endowment fund, it was suggested to reference the 
results of previous studies on returns on investment in genebanks; 
 The issue of high variation in budget allocation to Centers was raised; 
 The potential overlap in costing mechanism, i.e. between those provided in the CRPs and 
those included in the genebank funding proposal was also flagged;  
 Clarification was sought on eligibility of the genebank program for Window 2 and Window 
3 funding; 
 In his response to some of the questions and comments, Cary Fowler pointed out the 
following: 
o Increasing the endowment for genebanks is a shared responsibility with the CGIAR; 
the GCDT would welcome efforts to help increase the endowment fund; 
o on the possibility of combining ex situ conservation work with in situ work, the 
Trust has a constitutional mandate to focus on ex situ conservation of genetic 
resources; in its view,  in situ and ex situ conservation management and research 
requirements have fundamental differences; 
o in most cases, variation in allocation of funding to Centers could be explained, but 
there are also cases where improvement in allocation is needed; 
14 
 
o ensuring no overlap in funding is certainly an objective; the genebank program will 
look into the budgets and determine if allocation for genebank operation is provided 
within those CRPs. 
 Gordon MacNeil (Consortium Office) responded to questions on the mechanism of funding 
and funding flows, pointing out the following:  
o financial resources are received by Bioversity on behalf of the Consortium; the 
Consortium Office issues the instructions to Bioversity on financial transactions; this 
arrangement will continue until the host country agreement for the Consortium 
Office is signed; 
o genebank program is eligible for Window 2 funding; Window 2 funds earmarked for 
genebank funding will be disbursed first;   
 Jonathan Wadsworth confirmed that the genebank program could be funded as well from 
Window 3.  However, a side agreement will need to be signed; he clarified that the Fund 
would not be managing the money flow to Window 3.  
 
Proposed Genebanks Budget and Financing 
   (in $ million) 
 Total  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Ye ar 5  
Windows 1&2 92.7 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.7 18.9 
Window 3 & Bilateral 15.9    2.6    2.9    3.1    3.5   3.8 
Total 108.6 20.8 21.2 21.7 22.2 22.7 
 
Conclusions: 
 FC thanked the Consortium and Cary Fowler for presenting the genebank proposal. 
 FC’s decision on the proposal is presented in the conclusions under Agenda Item 12. 
 
Agenda Item 11.  Update on the Establishment of IEA 
 
Jean Lebel made a brief presentation on the overall progress of the establishment of the IEA, and in 
particular, on the search and selection process for the Head of IEA. He reported that process is 
underway and that the search and selection committee which he co-chairs with Ann Tutwiler, 
Deputy DG of FAO, has began its work. He summarized the qualifications of the individual that the 
committee is looking for, the details of which are given in the ToR and the position vacancy 
announcement for the Head of IEA.  
 
Jonathan Wadsworth also made a brief presentation clarifying the major types of independent 
external evaluation or assessment covered by the CGIAR evaluation policy approved by the Fund 
Council. The need for clarification was prompted by some questions on who is responsible for what 
type of evaluation or assessment. The following table was presented:  
  
15 
 
Type Managed by Timing/Frequency 
Prior to Fund Council 
Ex ante assessment of CRP proposals ISPC 
decision on the proposals 
CRP-commissioned external evaluations CRP management/ To be agreed in the 
of CRP components  Lead Center planning process 
Ex post independent external evaluations 
IEA Once per cycle 
of CRPs  
Impact assessment of a research area or 
As per work-program 
research issue (it is summative analysis, SPIA 
approved by Fund Council 
not a progressive evaluation) 
CGIAR system-wide evaluation IEA Every  6-7 years 
 
Discussion: 
 It was clarified that the Head of IEA is a full-time Director level position (D1) at FAO;  
 The search and selection committee does not expect that FAO would impose country 
weightings in appointing the Head of IEA. It is clear that the Head of IEA will be reporting 
directly to the CGIAR Fund Council.  
 It was reiterated that for credibility in the role that the individual is expected to play (i.e. as 
head of IEA), he/she should have outstanding credentials in evaluating agricultural 
research, not in evaluating development projects. He/she is not an evaluation scientist, but 
someone who understands the core business of the CGIAR.  
 There is a need to communicate to the Consortium and Centers the evaluation capacity of 
IEA and how it will undertake the evaluation work. The approved ToR of the IEA Head will 
help in responding to the questions.  
 The FC Chair pointed out that there is a need to carefully assess evaluations in a 
multilayered evaluation system. 
  
Agenda Item 12a.  CRP3.5 Proposal (Revised): Grain Legumes 
 
The revised CRP3.5 proposal Grain Legumes submitted by the Consortium was presented for Fund 
Council's virtual approval on a 'no objection' basis on Feb. 23, 2012. Subsequently, Fund Council 
members from the European constituency sent notification to the Fund Office of their objection to 
the virtual approval of this proposal. They indicated that "the reasons for this objection are detailed 
in the ISPC comments on the revised proposal." 
 
In accordance with the Fund Council's decision-making process on CRP proposals, the revised 
CRP3.5 proposal was included as an additional item in the FC7 agenda.  
 
The proposal was introduced by the Consortium Board Chair. William Dar, Director General of 
ICRISAT (the Lead Center) joined the meeting through telephone.  
 
The ISPC Chair gave a summary of the ISPC’s written commentary previously circulated to the Fund 
Council. The ISPC recommended that the proposal be substantially revised paying particular 
attention to a number of unmet ‘must haves’. The ISPC Chair pointed out that the question was how 
the FC could ensure that the ‘must haves’ would be fully addressed. In ISPC’s view, if the ‘must 
16 
 
haves’ are not fully met the Council would be faced with the same question three years from now 
(i.e. after the first cycle of implementation) on the rationale for its continued investment in the 
program.   
 
Discussion: 
 EIARD reiterated the reasons for its objection to the virtual approval of the proposal;  
 While other FC members also agreed with most of the ISPC comments and indicated that 
they should be followed through, they did note and acknowledge many improvements in 
the proposal; 
 The need to make a stronger case for prioritization, put in place processes for consultation 
with other CRPs particularly CRP1.1, and strengthen the M&E system were emphasized; 
 Major concern was expressed about the lack of data on grain legumes that are critical for 
strategic decisions, leading to a suggestion to look at revisions that include time to obtain 
those data; however, BMGF informed the Council that it has commissioned an assessment 
study on grain legumes and offered to make available the data generated to the CRP3.5 
proponents; the data are expected to be available in a few months; 
 The limited amount of time during which the proponents had to address the ‘must haves’ 
was raised. However, it was clarified that the timing of the submission of the revised 
proposal was not imposed, rather it was a decision that the proponents made. The timing of 
the FC meetings this year was one of the factors considered in making that decision. 
 William Dar thanked the Fund Council members for statements of support for the proposal 
and for the points made to guide the proponents in revising the proposal. On the issue of 
insufficient data, he proposed to continue to use what is available and build on them during 
program implementation. 
 
Proposed CRP3.5 Budget and Financing 
(in $ million) 
 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 
Windows 1&2 95.173 20.227 33.380 41.566 
Window 3 & Bilateral 43.962 18.626 14.628 10.708 
Total   139.135 38.853 48.008 52.274 
 
Conclusions: 
 FC thanked William Dar and his co-proponents for the revised CRP3.5 proposal. 
 FC’s decision on the proposal is presented in the conclusions under Agenda Item 12. 
 
Agenda Item 12b.  CRP3.6 Proposal (Revised): Dryland Cereals 
 
Like CRP3.5, the revised CRP3.6 proposal Dryland Cereals submitted by the Consortium was 
presented for Fund Council's virtual approval on a 'no objection' basis on Feb. 23, 2012. Fund 
Council members from the European constituency sent notification to the Fund Office of their 
objection to the virtual approval of this proposal indicating that the reasons were detailed in the 
ISPC comments on the proposal. 
 
In accordance with the Fund Council's decision-making process on CRP proposals, the revised 
CRP3.6 proposal was included as an additional item in the FC7 agenda.  
 
The CRP3.6 proposal was introduced by the Consortium Board Chair. William Dar, Director General 
of ICRISAT (the Lead Center) joined the meeting through telephone.  
17 
 
 
The ISPC Chair gave a summary of the ISPC’s written commentary previously circulated to the Fund 
Council. The ISPC recommended that the proposal be substantially revised paying particular 
attention to a number of unmet ‘must haves’. Many of the points made on CRP3.5 proposal were 
similar to those made by ISPC on the revised CRP3.6 proposal. However, the ISPC chair pointed to 
two additional aspects of CRP3.6 that were not key factors in the consideration of CRP3.5: 1) 
demographics of change in rural SSA and South Asia, i.e. the massive migration of population from 
rural to urban areas, which has significant implications on the future production and use of dryland 
cereals (sorghum and millet), and 2) millet and sorghum are produced in the same environment 
pointing to huge spillover potential of research on issues like resistance to environmental stresses, 
water productivity, and others.  
 
Discussion: 
 Two questions were asked related to the key factors that the ISPC Chair mentioned should 
have been considered in revising the proposal: 1) whether addressing productivity 
improvement issues of dryland cereals to benefit the current rural population in the areas 
those crops are grown is still a key objective, and 2) in the context of heat tolerance, 
drought tolerance, resilience, and changing climate how in his view would sorghum and 
millet look 10 to 15 years from now; 
 In response to the above questions, the ISPC Chair acknowledged that helping the poor 
people in the areas mentioned remains a key objective; however, he argued that there are 
other interventions that could be made during the transition period to help the population 
in those areas. On the second question, his view is that the work on the crop traits 
mentioned should not be crop-specific given the complexity of those traits; although 
sorghum and millet are suitable for growing in dryland areas, other options for improved 
crop production in those areas should also be considered;  
 The issue of insufficient data and analysis was also raised; 
 William Dar thanked the FC members for their comments. In his response he highlighted 
that CRP3.6 provides an opportunity to address the underinvestment in helping the poor 
people in dry areas where sorhum and millet are grown.  
 
Proposed CRP3.6 Budget and Financing 
(in $ million) 
 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 
Windows 1&2 55.898 10.512 18.461 26.925 
Window 3 & Bilateral 28.430 13.274   9.623    5.534 
Total 84.328 23.786 28.084 32.459 
 
Conclusions: 
 FC thanked William Dar and his co-proponents for the revised CRP3.6 proposal. 
 FC’s decision on the proposal is presented in the conclusions under Agenda Item 12. 
 
Agenda Item 12.  Decision Session on CRP Proposals 
 
The Chair reminded the FC of the four categories of decisions that were adopted at FC4 in the 
Council’s decision making process. They are as follows: 
 
CATEGORY I: Approval  
 Light adjustments which the Fund Council expects proponents to take into consideration 
18 
 
CATEGORY II: Approval with conditions 
 ‘Must haves’ 
 ISPC review of revised CRP proposal with ‘Must haves’ addressed 
 Virtual ‘no-objection’ approval of the proposal by the Fund Council 
 If there is objection, decision will be taken at a face to face Fund Council Meeting 
CATEGORY III: Request re-submission of the CRP proposal 
 Substantial ‘must haves’ 
 ISPC review of revised CRP proposal with ‘Must haves’ addressed 
 Decision taken at a face to face Fund Council Meeting 
CATEGORY IV: Rejection 
 
The Chair also pointed out that FC has been following a tradition of taking decisions by consensus. 
She also emphasized the importance of making absolutely clear the messages that the FC would like 
to convey to the Consortium Board and the CRP proponents. 
 
Decisions: 
  CRP1.2 Proposal (Revised): Humidtropics 
 
The overall proposal (program content, total budget and its components) was approved 
with conditions (Cat II decision), i.e. subject to meeting fully the following ‘must 
haves’: 
 
ISPC ‘must haves’: 
 
1) Greater prioritization required, namely: a) Research questions and approaches for 
most important Action Sites; b) Selection of sites; c) Identify the research to be 
provided by others in the same zones; d) Demonstrate scientific lessons learned 
from prior research; and e) Means to evaluate the effectiveness of the research 
identified; 
2) Identify impact pathways that map onto the SLOs; 
3) Greater priority to tree crops; and 
4) Show mechanism for transition to new place-based research (with appropriate 
growth rate and budget). 
FC ‘must haves’: 
 
1) Genuine cross-Center collaboration with development results; 
2) Convincing case that proposal will impact on the 4 SLOs; 
3) Greater clarity on needs and deliverables; 
4) Elaborate on the cross linkages with other CRPs;  
5) Elaborate on the extent to which the proposed integrated approach to sustainable 
intensification of humid tropical systems differs from the earlier farming systems 
research and extension (FSRE) approaches and integrated agricultural and rural 
development initiatives;  
6) The trade-offs between production intensification and environmental sustainability 
should be articulated; 
7) There is a need to clarify at what point the CGIAR should hand over some of the 
program activities to national programs; and 
8) A justification for high level of overhead cost component in the budget should be 
included. 
19 
 
 
 CRP1.1 Proposal Sub-component (Agrobiodiversity proposal): Enhancing the in situ 
management of agricultural biodiversity 
 
Submitted as a component of CRP1.1 (Dryland Systems), the Agrobiodiversity proposal was 
not acceptable to the Fund Council  (Cat IV decision: Rejection). There is a need to 
develop a system wide view of how to treat in situ agrobiodiversity that would involve not 
only the Centers concerned but also other institutions or alternative suppliers outside the 
CGIAR. It should also draw inputs from the ISPC and Fund Council members. The 
Consortium is requested to develop a system-wide proposal on how in-situ agrobiodiversity 
conservation and management can be best addressed taking account of the existing CRP 
portfolio. 
 
 Proposal for Long-Term Support of CGIAR Genebanks 
 
The proposal for long-term support of CGIAR genebanks (In Trust for the International 
Community: Plan and Partnership for Managing and Sustaining CGIAR-held Collections of 
Plant Genetic Resources) was approved (Cat I decision) with a budget of $108.6 m for 5 
years, including $92.7 m from Windows 1 and 2. 
 
 CRP 3.5 Proposal (Revised):  Grain Legumes  
 
The overall proposal (program content, total budget and its components) was approved 
with conditions (Cat II decision), i.e. subject to meeting fully the following ‘must 
haves’: 
 
ISPC ‘must haves’:  
 
1) Provide a stronger description of the potential of research on grain legumes to 
decrease poverty and hunger as a basis for prioritizing crop-region-constraint 
combinations;  
2) A work plan with more focus and fewer product lines, moving from individual 
programs to a global program within a CRP;  
3) Given limited success to date in the adoption of improved grain legume 
technologies, demonstrate feasible impact pathways, citing relevant references and 
documentation; and  
4) This CRP should be closely allied to and integrated into the system CRPs, and 
particularly CRP 1.1;  
 
FC ‘must haves’:  
 
1) Further attention should be given to M&E System; and  
2) There is a need for better integration of the crop improvement aspects with 
resource management. 
 
 CRP 3.6 Proposal (Revised):  Dryland Cereals  
 
The overall proposal (program content, total budget and its components) was approved 
with conditions (Cat II decision), i.e. subject to meeting fully the following ‘must 
haves’: 
20 
 
 
ISPC ‘must haves’: 
 
1) Provide an improved analysis and presentation of the target populations who can 
realistically be expected to benefit from the CRP 3.6 research; 
2) Better justify and prioritize proposed work plans on a crop-specific basis; pool 
research efforts in identified areas across two or more of the dryland cereals for 
greater efficiency;  
3) Reduce the scope of research in terms of crops and target areas when likely 
effectiveness of the research at scale cannot be demonstrated; 
4) Do an analysis of current work to identify barriers to adoption and shifting to new 
areas of innovative research and approaches to overcome these barriers; 
5)  Present new and innovative approaches to overcome constraints to adoption... ; 
6) Present realistic and research-specific impact pathways that carefully address the 
conditioning factors and incorporate feedback loops; and 
7) Show better integration of CRP3.6 with CRP1.1, as well as justification for their 
separate identities or merger; there needs to be a plan to monitor the impact 
pathways for CRP 3.6 cereals research drawing lessons from both CRPs. 
FC ‘must haves’: 
1) Provide further attention to Monitoring and Evaluation system;   
2) Present evidence of linkages with the Regional Fora; and 
3) Provide information on formal commitment of other partners. 
 
Decision Matrix: 
 
Lead Total Funds from 
CRP Center/ Budget       W1&W2            N    o    o  f 
No CRP Title Institution ($m) ($m) Years 
Category I Decision – Approval  
In Trust for the International 
Community: Plan and 
__ Partnership for Managing and Bioversity  108.600 92.700 5 
Sustaining CGIAR-held 
Collections  (Genebanks) 
Category II Decision - Approval with conditions 
CRP1.2 Humidtropics IITA 144.417 69.192 3 
CRP3.5 Grain Legumes ICRISAT 139.135 95.173 3 
CRP3.6 Dryland Cereals ICRISAT 84.328 55.898 3 
Category IV Decision - Rejection 
CRP1.1 Agrobiodiversity ICARDA/ 49.665 12.774 3 
SRT5 Bioversity 
 
 Proponents of CRP1.2, CRP3.5 and CRP3.6 should take the necessary time to adequately address 
the 'must haves'. The FC request that the ‘must haves’ are fully met. The fundamental aspects 
raised by ISPC on the CRP3.6 proposal should be given special attention.  
 
21 
 
 The process for addressing the 'must haves' needs to involve the concerned Centers, which should 
reach out to institutions outside the CGIAR for advice and inputs. The proponents should also 
invite the FC members who expressed specific concerns about the proposals as well as the ISPC 
with the understanding that it would be for the purpose of clarifying the ‘must haves’. The 
engagement of the ISPC would not undermine the independent role it plays in the ex ante 
assessment of the CRP proposals. 
 
Agenda Item 13. Harmonized Reporting 
 
Jonathan Wadsworth framed the discussion, which is based on the draft templates for interim 
Annual Reporting from the Consortium.  Jonathan noted that Anne Marie Izac from the Consortium 
Office was the principal coordinator of this effort and he was standing in for her as she was unable 
to be at the FC meeting. 
 
The following points were highlighted: 
 
 The objective of this exercise is to get to a point where the harmonized reports would cater 
to all needs and provide information in a transparent and common template across the 
System; 
 The templates used in the 2012 reporting period will be for 2011 work.  This is an interim 
measure and a learning process.  Four to six CRPs will submit reports using these templates 
in 2012.   
 The package consists of three templates: 
o high level progress report on the overall CRP  portfolio developed by the 
Consortium Office and Board and is based on the individual CRP progress reports; 
o CRP progress reports; one for each CRP, based on very detailed supporting 
documentation; and 
o externally audited annual financial report of the Consortium  and Centers with 
elements of the operational performance incorporated into it. 
 The detailed supporting documentation will be available to all donors; 
 In 2012, the annual progress reports from CRPs will contain meaningful indicators some of 
which will be common across the different CRPs.   
 The Joint Agreement, Section G stipulates certain commitments on reporting requirements.  
A space holder was inserted at the time as at that stage the detailed templates had not been 
developed.  
 A comparison of the elements contained in Section G of the Joint Agreement and any 
deviation from that based on the templates is provided for ease of comparison (provided in 
Annex 3).  It maps across the intent of the information which is now contained in the 
templates.   
 
Discussion: 
 Members wished to understand the process that will be put in place to come up with a 
permanent system as it was felt that the process to arrive at this stage has not been very 
robust.  It was pointed out that the Consortium Office and the Fund Office are open to work 
with FC members on a better process to carry out a rigorous evaluation of the robustness of 
the templates and to come up with other proposals for improvement, if required; 
 The Consortium Board Chair emphasized that their needs to be rules of engagement that 
need to be followed by donors as well as the Centers to avoid unpleasant surprises.  He also 
pointed out that not only the first 2 fast- trackers but also 3 other CRPs that have been 
22 
 
functioning for at least 6 months will present reports by April 30.  The Consortium will 
complete the cross CRP analysis and make it available to all donors in August.  The 
information will be available online so that it is easily accessible and at the level of detail 
that donors wish to delve into. 
 Members recognized the importance of the templates not only for reporting purposes but 
also for learning through the process and using the results of the reporting for advocacy 
within organizations; 
 The work to be undertaken on developing common indicators will be valuable to help 
simplify and communicate coherently how the new CGIAR System is performing and how 
CRPs are contributing to the System as a whole; 
 Members urged the Consortium to consider a system level framework that could be 
composed of such elements and serve as an annex to the strategy and results framework.   
 Members expressed satisfaction to see the inclusion of gender equality indicators at both 
the output and outcome level of the  reporting and encourage CRPs and the Consortium  to 
take the opportunity to include gender aggregated data in all of its reporting to the extent 
possible, especially through the process of developing common indicators; 
 Members were pleased to see that the Consortium monitoring principles include  an openly 
accessible website for the monitoring of information that can be accessed by donors and 
would be especially useful for the different  reporting cycles and to be able to draw on those 
preliminary results; 
 Members encouraged  the Consortium to include a common set of elements  across CRPs to 
measure expected results such as smart indicators, targets, estimated timelines and means 
of verification and wondered whether there is a minimum frequency of updates; 
 On the question of whether the reports would be available in 6 months as stated in Section 
G clause 19.4, it was clarified that the audited financial statement should arrive within 6 
months after the calendar year.  Section 20.2 in the Joint Agreement did not have a time 
frame for this overarching consolidated annual report which has financial and activity 
components.   The addition of the August date is helpful because it specifies a date where 
none was available. 
 Members emphasized that clarity is required not only on the general substance of the 
template but also on the form, as the experience has been of a wide variation in reporting 
making it very difficult to digest the information in a way that is comparable across CRPs 
particularly if it does not stem from common indicators; 
 Members required that  
o Annual reports should conform to an agreed standard template;   
o Reports should be concise and focus on results, with links to be more detailed 
information on activities through web links; 
o Support the idea of a separate report targeted at a wider audience. This should 
include highlights of achievements; 
o Baselines need to be clearly defined and appropriate indicators, including 
quantitative indicators, used to record progress from the baseline (and/or previous 
year situation) to milestones, targets and outputs; 
o Any significant progress towards outcomes should be recorded; 
o The format should have sufficient flexibility to explain any deviations from the 
projected targets, such as unanticipated problems or opportunities for new lines of 
research; 
o The report should also mention progress in building the partnerships that are 
inherent to the CRP and on cross-cutting issues such as gender and capacity 
development. 
23 
 
o indicators should build on existing frameworks for performance management and 
adopt common metrics where possible 
o CRP management is required to develop the most appropriate indicators for their 
impact pathways. However metrics used to measure progress at CRP level need to 
be sufficiently compatible so that the Consortium can accurately report on progress 
of the CGIAR system as a whole. Close coordination between the Consortium and 
CRPs is therefore essential for an accurate and efficient reporting system.   
 
Conclusions and Decisions: 
 It is essential to have a system in place for regular reporting of CRPs and the CGIAR system on 
progress towards results and outcomes that meets the needs of all donors. 
 FC approved the templates for adoption on a trial basis in 2012. 
 
Agenda Item 14: Predictability of Funding 
 
Jonathan Wadsworth framed the discussion following on from the Donor Meeting that took place on 
March 6, 2012. 
 
Jonathan commented that the donor meeting was extremely helpful and provided useful feedback 
to come up with a resource mobilization strategy for the overall CGIAR.  The concept of a compact 
where different parts of the System work together to achieve the desired results was well received 
by the donors.  Building on the feedback received from the donors, Jonathan highlighted the 
following points as a way forward: 
 Funders were not receptive to a replenishment model and did not wish to go down that 
route at this stage; 
 Concentrate on the general issue of multi-year funding as opposed to a specific way of 
getting there; 
 CGIAR has moved from projects and Centers to programs and CRPs which leaves the System 
vulnerable in terms of timing on the inflow of funds, hence requires better information on 
donor funding and more commitment over the longer term; 
 Require to concentrate very heavily on multi-year funding even if  it is about multi-year 
promises than multi-year money inflow of funds; 
 Work towards a three year funding cycle and that donors are able to review results of CRPs, 
both past results and expected future results and satisfy themselves that in doing so they 
will get as much if not more back in terms of results which will in turn enable them to 
increase funding; 
 The compact is fundamental, as it helps all parts of the System to create a rigor in looking 
for metrics, indicators, and  results which will be tangible for the funders; 
 The System benefits from greater funding from existing donors and new donors coming into 
the System; 
 Endorsement of the idea of setting in motion a process which will enable the Fund Office  to 
organize a discussion at Funders Forum among FC members and other donors about multi-
year funding, and where some of the FC donor members could indicate their funding profile 
for the next 3 year cycle; 
 Work with the Consortium to create the compact and take examples to the Funder Forum 
clear results frameworks at the CRP level to indicate what the System is offering those 
donors who are prepared to talk about multi-year funding; 
 A commitment to have a conversation during the year on Window 3 which will not be mixed 
with the resource mobilization strategy; 
24 
 
Discussion: 
 Some Members felt that the compact is clearly the way forward.  A stronger commitment to 
time bound deliverables from the System as a whole is required.  The harmonized reporting 
system presently being set up will need a convergence of views and willingness to 
compromise from all parts of the System.  Donors will require more detail and definition of 
some of the indicators than currently available.  Once donors have assurance on these 
issues, significant progress can be made towards the three-year funding period; 
 Some Members indicated that their multi-year funding would be through Window 3 and, to 
the extent there is the ability to accept that, they could support the CGIAR in its efforts to 
move towards a multi-year funding profile; 
 It was clarified that new funders could be eligible for a seat on the FC on contribution of 
$0.5 m per year.  Funders would be known as CGIAR Fund Donors on contribution of 
$100,000 per annum; 
 The Consortium inquired whether Window 3 funders would abide by the one harmonized 
reporting system being set up.  It was explained that there was no difficulty in accepting the 
one harmonized reporting system as long as it was a system that all donors are comfortable 
with. 
 
Conclusions: 
 The Fund Council endorsed the approach to use the Funders Forum in Oct 2012 as the first 
collective indication session on multi-year funding for the CGIAR Fund. 
 The 5 CRPs that are currently under implementation have results framework available for 
funders to use as basis for multi-year funding.   
 There should be an effort to get other donors /funders to participate in the Funders Forum.  
 
Agenda item 15. Any Other Business 
 
At the opening session, the following items were requested to be added under Agenda Item 15. 
 Readout from Alan Tollervey on Consortium Board Meeting  
 Update from Japan one year after the Tsunami and Earthquake 
 Letter from ICARDA Director General on contingency plan 
 Arrangements for financing ex-post assessments 
 GCARD 2 Budget 
 Plan and process for 2013-2015 Fund Council Composition 
 Selection of future venues for FC meetings 
 
a) Readout from Alan Tollervey on CB Meeting 
 
The following points were highlighted by Alan: 
The 2 day board meeting was preceded by the meeting of the Consortium Board and the Center 
Directors General and Center Board Chairs; it was extremely positive.  There were substantial 
issues on the agenda and it was very encouraging to see the extent to which Centers were trying to 
get to grips with the issues of CRP management; 
 Jonathan Wadsworth’s resource mobilization strategy received a very positive response 
from the Centers.  The effort the Fund Office is making to raise resources was recognized; 
 Overall impression was of an organization identifying key challenges going forward  and 
getting to grips with those; 
 
 
25 
 
At the Consortium Board Meeting, the following items were discussed: 
 An interesting presentation was made on the new branding guidelines for the CGIAR as a 
whole; 
 The SRF Action Plan was discussed.  There are three elements to that going forward which 
are around building foresight work into the development of the new SRF, the prioritization 
of both among CRPs and within CRPs, both of which are key issues and between now and 
GCARD there is a lot of work to do; 
 There was a presentation on the gender strategy which is making progress.  The Senior 
Gender Adviser presented the strengths and the problems being faced in getting the 
strategy out across the whole suite of CRPs.  From the presentation, CRPs are struggling to 
get to grips between the objective of having research focused on gender issues and 
mainstreaming gender in research.  The most recently approved CRPs don't have their 
strategies in place and the gender focal points are young and inexperienced women.  The 
presentation emphasized that senior male researchers are not taking gender issues as a key 
research strategy.  FC may wish to track this very closely and offer support to the 
Consortium in their efforts to get the strategy implemented and be influential across the 
CRPs.  
 There was a presentation from Gordon on resources which substantially has been given to 
the FC; 
 There was a final discussion on the harmonizing of the CRPs which again is an issue of great 
interest to most of the donors, both in terms of financial harmonization which is an issue 
that the Consortium Office has to work with the lead centers but also intellectual or 
research harmonization. 
 Monitoring and reporting was discussed.  The CB recognizes the importance of having 
strong reporting mechanisms in place. Donors engaged in those dialogues, both in 
intellectual assets and on reporting, need to ensure that the relevant comments reach the 
Consortium on time.  
 
b) Update from Japan one year after the Tsunami and Earthquake 
 
Mr. Kenichiro Tanaka, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan presented the Road to Recovery since the 
Great East Japan Earthquake.    
 
Mr. Tanaka reminded FC members that the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, followed by innumerable 
aftershocks and a tsunami, resulted in over 15,800 dead, over 3,200 missing and over 6,000 
persons injured.  342,000 inhabitants in the affected area were relocated. 
 
The Government of Japan responded by providing housing facilities for displaced families, speedy 
reconstruction of infrastructure, spearheading voluntary reduction of energy use by 10-15%, 
speedy recovery of the mining and manufacturing industry and making the utmost effort to contain 
the spread of radioactive substances. 
 
The Government of Japan continues a rigorous and intensive monitoring of the situation in the 
affected areas. 
 
The Chair applauded the people of Japan for their voluntary social norms which allowed the 
country to increase its energy efficiency by 28% in 6 months and remarked that it is a testament to 
the resilience of the Japanese people.  She requested Mr. Tanaka to convey the CGIAR Fund 
26 
 
Council’s best wishes to the people of Japan and its Government on the occasion of the 1st 
Anniversary of this terrible event. 
 
c) Letter from ICARDA Director General on contingency plan 
 
The Consortium Board Chair informed the Fund Council that he had been asked by the ICARDA 
Director General and the Chair of the Board of Trustees to bring to FC’s attention a contingency plan 
that has been drawn up by ICARDA following the tenuous situation presently prevailing in the 
Country.  Although a budget was attached to the letter, there was no request for funding for the 
contingency plan at this stage. The letter was circulated and read at the FC. 
 
Conclusion: 
 The FC requested that the Chair write to the ICARDA Director General and to the Chairman of 
the Board expressing FC’s solidarity in this difficult time and wishing them well.  FC will stay in 
contact with them and monitor the situation on the ground over the next few months.   
 
d) Arrangements for Financing ex-post Assessments 
 
Prabhu Pingali of BMGF framed the discussion.  He informed the FC that, with the 
full support of DFID and EC, they would like to propose to put in place arrangements for financing 
ex-post assessments in the CGIAR. 
 
The highlights of the proposal were: 
 Although there is a monitoring and evaluation arrangement and an impact assessment 
framework that addresses CRPs, the proponents felt there is another level of impact 
assessment that is done at the Centers and needs to continue. Such studies may include, for 
example, determining impact of CGIAR crop germplasm cutting across CRPs.   SPIA has 
conducted such impact assessments over time; however these activities are funded in an ad 
hoc manner by individual donors.   
 It was observed that while there has been a strong track record of impact assessment work 
in certain areas of the CGIAR over the years, a strong ex-post impact assessment relative to 
the SLOs does not exist at this time.  .  
 It was also noted that impact assessment is important for internal negotiations within 
donor institutions when funding priorities are determined and to demonstrate the visibility 
of the work that is supported.  Therefore the proposal to both deepen the existing impact 
assessment and broaden it to cover the gaps in some areas would benefit the System as a 
whole. 
 The proponents suggested a budget of $3 to $4 m dedicated for such activities and the 
Gates Foundation is willing to make a grant for the second phase of the germplasm impact 
assessment.   
 It was proposed that FC create a mechanism for funding long term impact assessment 
through SPIA that is additional to the CSP and CRP evaluation that will be managed by the 
IEA. 
 
Discussion: 
 Donors suggested that FC be used as the mechanism for determining impact assessment 
studies.  It was pointed out that the FC meets bi-annually and could determine the highest 
priority impact assessment areas with guidance from the Consortium and the ISPC.   
27 
 
 Donors wished to see the impact assessment go beyond measuring yield productivity and 
pecuniary benefits to look at nutritional outcomes, household food security, health etc.  
Specific areas of work were suggested such as gender assessment, attribution of the 
international input and national input, etc. 
 Donors wished to ensure that whatever mechanism is worked out, it keeps the expertise in 
SPIA and the community of practice to which it is connected and on which it draws in 
performing its tasks. 
 ISPC Chair described the in-house staffing and out-sourcing process used by SPIA to 
conduct the impact assessment studies.  He felt that it was critically important to have  
the SPIA Chair as a state of the art resource in impact assessment to draw on for CRP 
reviews.  In acknowledging the needs for enhancing CGIAR impact assessment, the ISPC 
Chair made a strong plea that any augmentation of SPIA’s role should not dilute the broader 
aspects of the Council’s work and especially the time that the SPIA Chair can commit for 
other Council matters. 
 
Conclusions: 
 Strong support was expressed by FC members on the proposed expansion of the work on 
impact assessment and putting in place an appropriate financing arrangement for it. 
 Ex-post assessment studies undertaken by SPIA are embedded in the ISPC and SPIA work plan; 
additional funding will become a part of the budgetary support to the work plan. 
 
e) GCARD 2 Budget 
 
The Chair framed the discussion by informing the FC that the GCARD 2 revised budget was very 
recently received with a funding request of $900,000.  At FC 6 in November 2011 GFAR was 
informed of the FC decision to fund an indicative amount of $800,000.  The Chair had proposed that 
the higher amount would be performance based, and relate specifically to an agenda that reflects 
the view of the Consortium, the FC and the needs of CGIAR and that the funding would go 
specifically to people with relevant skills and experience.  The list as well as the agenda would be 
validated by the Consortium Board.    
 
Discussion: 
 Members noted that the plans for GCARD 2 and the budget do not fully reflect the pointed 
messages from the November FC meeting with regard to the purpose of the meeting, and 
what would success look like on the last day of GCARD2;  
 Members commented on the use of funds, to what extent it contributes towards CGIAR 
outcomes that the CGIAR  is trying to deliver, and how it feeds in to the big decision making 
processes; the analysis on foresight to the future thinking around research objectives 
continues to be vague and not clearly defined and therefore difficult to defend in home 
institutions; 
 Members wished to see more granular line item breakdown of the funding; 
 Some Members emphasized that there is a bigger objective in funding GCARD 2.  Part of the 
reason for funding GCARD is to look at agriculture research development overall, of which 
CGIAR is a major component and to determine the best possible way of making the 
involvement of the different stakeholder  groups most effective.  The decision therefore 
needs to reflect the broader picture of how international agricultural research for 
development can be reformed and made more efficient and demand driven; 
 It was confirmed that GCARD2 would be funded from the CSP amount as indicated in the 
Common Operational Framework; 
28 
 
 The GFAR Chair assured the FC that GFAR perceives the GCARD to be a joint venture 
between GFAR and the CGIAR Consortium, and has been the spirit since the start of the 
GCARD2 process; 
 On the comment that there was little or no science built into the agenda of GCARD1, it  was 
pointed out that the primary intention of the conference 1 was aimed at bringing 
constituents together and finding common ground for collaboration;  
 A survey was conducted to get reaction of constituents and collaborators; GCARD 1 received 
very high scores, as the participants were looking at a gathering in which building 
partnerships was of prime importance rather than look at the science; 
 It is important to evaluate GCARD2 to see if the conference meets the key issues of whether 
the content includes science, whether the CRPs are prominently portrayed and giving due 
importance to the role of the CGIAR at GCARD2. 
 The GFAR Chair confirmed that more granularity will be provided in the budget and 
highlight the deliverables.  
  
Decisions: 
 The Fund Council approved funding of up to $100,000 for GCARD2 in addition to $800,000, 
provided that the requests for granularity of budget and specificity of deliverables are met. 
The payment of the additional amount will be performance-based. FC requested GFAR to 
outline specific deliverables that would come out of GCARD2 and meet the needs of the Fund 
Council and the Consortium.   
 Fund Council members have been requested to provide feedback on the GCARD2 agenda in the 
next few days which the Fund Office will collate and submit to the Consortium Office.  
 Both the Consortium Board and the Fund Council are committed to ensure that individuals 
funded with the additional $100,000 are highly relevant and will participate actively in 
GCARD2, giving accurate feedback to the Centers and the Consortium. It was also agreed that 
at GCARD2, the FC would think on how it engages as a System with the different constituencies 
and stakeholders on an ongoing basis. 
 
f) Plan and Process for 2013-2015 Fund Council Composition 
 
Jonathan Wadsworth framed the discussion in light of the request for information on the process 
for 2013-2015 Fund Council composition.   
 
It was explained that the Joint Agreement provides the eligibility criteria as follows: 
 a Fund Donor who has contributed an average of  $0.5m in the preceding 2 years would be 
eligible for representation of membership of the FC; 
 
The FC needs to review Window 3 prior to the donor eligibility determinations for 2013 to 2015 
and address various issues such as of minimum contributions, type of contributions etc.   
 
The Fund Office will start a process shortly which will involve drawing up a draft paper which will 
be circulated and discussed with the FC, enabling the Fund Office to provide FC some options to 
deliberate.    
 
The Fund Office will initiate a Fund Council survey to look at lessons learned and determine options 
for the appropriate number of FC members, representation from different regions, types of donors 
etc.  The Rules of Procedures will also be examined to see whether they are still valid and identify 
29 
 
areas where the FC can improve its performance, and Fund Donors can provide suggestions to the 
Fund Office where it can improve its performance.  
 
 One Member pointed out that it took a long time to agree to the current rules for 
configuration of the Fund Council and there needs to be strong reasons for changing the 
rules at this stage. 
 
Conclusions: 
 Clear indication will be given to donors on the time line and format for inputs. 
 FC8 will have a decision item on the 2013-15 Fund Council composition. 
 
g) Future Venues for FC Meeting 
 
The Chair framed the discussion by informing the FC that she recommends that the Fund Office  
iterate a series of principles on how we decide where to meet, following which the FO will solicit 
invitations or offers or suggestions for FC meetings in 2013.  Many members have opined that at 
least one meeting be held at a Center to both use the opportunity to understand key client 
perspectives but also enable scientists to understand the roles and workings of the FC. 
 
A decision on approximate dates and venues of meetings in 2013 can be made at FC 8 in Uruguay.   
 
Conclusion: 
 Fund Office will send a note following FC 7 to FC requesting suggestions for venues of FC 
meetings in 2013.  An open and transparent process on deciding where FC meets will be 
followed henceforth.  
 
Closing 
 
The Chair commented that a momentous decision was reached on intellectual assets and informed 
the FC that the Fund Office and Consortium Office staffs have worked out talking points to explain 
the decisions reached and to give examples of situations that this decision would address.  The 
talking points will be posted on the website immediately, so that it is accessible to all.  The Chair felt 
this would be a test for the FC because the spirit in which the consensus is articulated on a difficult 
issue will be a real sign of the cohesiveness of the FC.   
 
The Chair reminded FC Members that a survey questionnaire will be circulated shortly, and 
members will be given clear guidance on the timeline to respond to the survey as it is important 
that all members engage in the survey and inform the Fund Office in case of difficulty, so that 
assistance can be provided. 
 
The Fund Council was also informed that all presentations at FC 7 will be posted on the web. 
 
The Chair thanked the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its hospitality and for the use of its 
excellent facilities and support.  The Chair expressed FC’s appreciation to the BMGF Co-Chair’s 
making the time to speak to the FC. 
 
The Chair thanked FC Members and felt honored to experience the spirit of collegiality and 
convergence that was displayed at FC7.  She observed that Members made an effort to find 
constructive and collective outcomes on every item.   
 
30 
 
She also thanked the ISPC, Consortium, and the Directors General present at the meeting.  She 
requested the Directors General to thank Center staff and scientists for their hard work.  She 
remarked that everything the FC does is to try to support the Centers and help achieve the desired 
results of their work.  She also thanked the Fund Office staff for their contributions in making FC7 a 
success. 
 
 
  
31 
 
Annex 1 
List of Participants  
7th CGIAR Fund Council Meeting  
BMGF Headquarters 
Seattle, Washington – March 7-8, 2012 
 
 
 
  
Rachel Kyte    (FC Chair) 
Jonathan Wadsworth (FC Executive Secretary) 
 FC Member Representative 
FC Members FC Member Representatives 
Alternates 
AARINENA Faisal Awawdeh   
Australia Nick Austin  
David Bergvinson 
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Prabhu Pingali (Meeting Co-Chair) 
Aline Flowers 
Brazil Luciano Nass  
Canada Rebecca Smart  
China Anping Ye   
European Commission Philippe Thevenoux David Radcliffe 
FAO Xianguin Yao  
GFAR Monty Jones Mark Holderness 
IDRC Jean Lebel Susan Robertson 
Rodney Cooke  
IFAD Kevin Cleaver 
Shantanu  Mathur 
India S.K. Datta  
Japan Kenichiro Tanaka Akiko Nagano 
Kenya Romano Kiome  
Papua New Guinea Raghunath Ghodake  
Sweden Philip Chiverton David Lymer 
Switzerland Carmen Thoennissen  
Robert Bertram 
U.S.A Julie Howard 
Eric Witte, Paul Figueroa 
United Kingdom Alan Tollervey Rachel Lambert 
World Bank Juergen Voegele Fionna Douglas 
     
FC Standing Observers 
Consortium Board Chair  Carlos Perez del Castillo  
Consortium CEO (Vacant) Gordon MacNeil (Alternate) 
ISPC Chair Ken Cassman 
Fund Trustee Pamela Crivelli 
  
32 
 
    
Donor Observers  
Belgium Joseph Kalders 
China Lubiao Zhao 
European Commission/EIARD Philippe Petithuguenin  
France  Frederic Lapeyrie 
Netherlands  Armand Evers 
Norway  Ruth Haug 
Norway  Daniel van Gilst 
    
Non-Donor Observers  
Emile Frison Bioversity 
Nteranya Sanginga IITA 
Peter Gardiner ISPC Secretariat 
Elise Perset Consortium Office 
Andrea Stumpf World Bank  
Aggrey Agumya FARA 
Iftikhar Mostafa Fund Office  
Lystra Antoine Fund Office  
Manuel Lantin Fund Office  
Feroza Vatcha Fund Office  
Manuel Penalver-Quesada Fund Office (Consultant) 
  
33 
 
 
Annex 2 
 
FAO’s Statement at FC7 Regarding the “CGIAR Principles on Intellectual Assets” 
FAO welcomes that the proposed CGIAR Principles on Intellectual Assets (IA) are committed to the 
principle of international public goods. 
However, we do not believe that the Principles are ready for adoption. Yes, a lot of time has been 
spent on them. But the issues are complex and all the implications need to be considered carefully 
before we adopt the Principles.  
 The proposed CGIAR IA Principles would allow the Consortium to approve “in certain cases” 
deviations by the Centers from the IA Principles. Without prior consultation with the 
Fund Council, the Consortium could authorize a Center to go beyond the exceptions 
sanctioned by the IA Principles. FAO has full confidence in the Consortium and its ability to 
handle requests for waivers.  But we believe this is a very sensitive issue and the 
Consortium should not be authorized to unilaterally approve deviations from the Principles. 
 Our main concern is that the IA Principles score extremely low on transparency. Article 
10.3 would require the Consortium to provide annually a “high-level report” that would 
contain only “general and aggregated information.” More detailed information, including 
agreement-specific information, would be made available to a small Fund Council sub-group 
only, the “FC IP Group”. However, the FC IP Group would work under the conditions of 
complete confidentiality and it is unclear which substantive information, if any, the FC IP 
Group could make available to the Fund Council without violating its confidentiality 
obligations. 
Chair, the IA Principles, if adopted as proposed, could seriously damage the reputation of the CGIAR 
as an open and transparent public sector research network whose mandate is the creation of 
international public goods, rather than the generation of secrets and confidential information. 
We will not stand in the way of consensus on the IA Principles. However, we would request that our 
concerns be kindly reflected verbatim in the report of the meeting, should the Fund Council adopt 
the IA principles today. In addition, we recommend that the Fund Council express its hope that the 
Consortium and the Centers interpret the Principles in a way that facilitates the CG policy of 
transparency and accountability and that they will make as much information as possible publicly 
available, including agreement-specific information on IA. Finally we suggest that the Fund Council 
encourage the Consortium to consult broadly, including, in particular with the FC IP Group, on 
deviations from Article 6.2.1. 
 
  
34 
 
Annex 3 
 
RELEVANCE OF THE HARMONIZED REPORTING PROPOSAL TO THE 
JOINT AGREEMENT, SECTION G. REPORTING 
 
Issue:  The Consortium’s harmonized reporting proposal does not spell out its effects on Section G. 
 
Solution: Following Consortium clarification, if the FC agrees to the proposal, it would be on the 
basis of the effects on Section G laid out in the chart below, as summarized by the following 
statement. 
 
With reference to Section G of the Joint Agreement between the Consortium and the Fund Council, this 
document is approved for all reports to be provided within calendar year 2012 with the intention of 
superseding subsections 19.2, 19.3, 19.4 and 20.2; all other subsections of Section G remain unchanged. 
 
Joint Agreement, Section G Consortium Proposal Consortium FC Approval 
and Templates Clarification Means: 
  
19 Financial Reporting 
19.1 Maintenance of records Not mentioned Unchanged  
19.2 a) Quarterly consolidated Not mentioned Superseded Agree to rely on 
unaudited financial reports annual financial 
for System Costs (60 d after reporting only 
Q) for the FC 
b) Quarterly consolidated NB:  The CO will 
unaudited financial reports receive 6 month 
(re all funds) for each CRP financial reports 
(60 d after Q) for each CRP as 
part of its 
monitoring 
responsibilities. 
19.3 a) Annual audited financial Yes Superseded but Agree to 
statements for Consortium  no substantive proposed 
(6 m after CY)  change  template 
b) Annual audited financial Yes  approach 
statements for each Center 
(6 m after CY) 
19.4 Annual consolidated Yes Superseded Agree to 
financial report for the proposed 
Consortium and Centers (6 template 
m after CY) approach 
NB:  This will 
cover both the 
Consortium and 
Centers. 
19.5 Right to request external Not mentioned Unchanged  
audit for any W1 / W2 
funds 
19.6 Right to request separate Not mentioned Unchanged  
35 
 
audited financials or 
reports for W1 / W2 funds 
19.7 Record retention and Not mentioned  Unchanged  
access 
     
20 Activity Reporting 
20.1 Report with sufficient Not mentioned Unchanged  
granularity 
20.2 a) Annual report on Partially covered, but Superceded Agree to limit 
Consortium operations (no limited to SRF  scope of CGIAR 
time frame) implementation  (full  annual report to 
o Results re SRF CRP portfolio plus  SRF, with 
o Use of funds from whatever else Centers  Consortium 
CGIAR Fund (incl W3) have to implement  discretion re 
o Operational SRF)  when to report 
performance of Centers   on other 
o Significant Consortium May or may not  italicized topics  
actions re Centers (incl include other italicized  NB:  Report will 
common services) topics depending on  cover all that 
o Consortium-level risk year – although not  was done under 
analysis and mitigation specified in proposal,  SRF – unclear at 
o Other activities relevant Consortium plans to  this point how 
to Consortium / Center report on activities for  much will be 
operations or CRP greater collaboration  outside CRPs, 
performance among CRPs, greater  but can expect 
 research synergies,  something 
 greater savings  around 5-8% of 
 through sharing of  total budget 
 research site, etc.  (e.g., blue sky 
   research) 
    
    
    
b) Annual report for each    
CRP (no time frame in  Superseded, but  
Sect G)  no substantive  
o Progress on CRP (incl Yes change Agree to 
re targets and re SRF) proposed 
 template 
approach 
 
 
20.3 Final CRP report (6 m after Not mentioned Unchanged  
completion) 
 
36