cgiar annual report 2006 O Partnerships Focus on Tribute 06 ANNUAL REPORT TO CGIAR Members FOREffective Research CGIAR Secretariat A Unit of the CGIAR System Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA t 1 202 473 8951 f 1 202 473 8110 e cgiar@cgiar.org Printed on environmentally friendly paper July 2007 PHOTOGRAPHY CREDITS Front Cover: WARDA (Rama Venkatraman) OFlap: CIAT O P2: IRRI (Adam Barclay) P3: CGIAR O P4: Panos Pictures (Mikkel Ostergaard) OP7: IWMI (Sharni Jayawardena) P8: Bioversity (Michael Hermann) OP9: CGIAR O P10: Top: Panos Pictures (Crispin Hughes), Bottom: Minden Pictures (Michael & Patricia Fogden), Inset: ILRI O P11: FAO, Inset: IWMI P12: World Bank, Inset: Istock Photo O P13: DRC (Dhed'a Djailo) O P14: World Bank OP15: IRRI P17: Top to bottom: (1) CIP (Maria Elena), (2) ILRI (Romney), (3) ICARDA (Majeb Khatib), (4) Bioversity (Jeremy Cherfas), (5) IITA (Nelson Abila) OP18: Top to bottom: (1) World Bank, (2) ILRI (Stevie Mann), (3) Minden Pictures (Michael & Patricia Fogden), (4) IRRI, From a dozen founding Members in 1971, the (5) World Bank, (6) World Bank O P19: CGIAR OP21: Top: Panos Pictures (Jan Banning), African Development CTMte d'Ivoire International Fund for New Zealand Bottom: IRRI (Ariel Javellana), Inset: IRRI OP22: WARDA OP23: Bioversity Consultative Group on International Agricultural Bank Denmark Agricultural Development Nigeria P24: CIAT O P25: CIFOR OP26: CIMMYT OP27: CIP O P28: ICARDA O P29: ICRISAT P30: IFPRI O P31: IITA O P32: ILRI O P33: IRRI OP34: IWMI OP35: World Agroforestry Arab Fund for Arab Republic of Egypt Islamic Republic of Iran Norway Research (CGIAR) has grown to 64 Members, P36: WorldFish Centre OP37: top: Panos Pictures (Marcus Rose), Bottom: CIP, Economic and Social Finland Ireland OPEC Fund for International including 25 industrialized countries, 22 developing Inset: ILRI (Maria George) OP38: CGIAR OP39: CGIAR O P40: GCP (Peter Fredenburg) Development P41: HarvestPlus OP42: World Bank OP43: SSA-CPOP49: CGIAR Food and Agriculture Israel Development Asian Development Bank countries, 5 private foundations and 12 regional P51: Top: CIP (Maria Elena), Bottom: CIP, Inset: ILRI OP62: Top: CIAT (Ramirez), Organization of the Italy Pakistan Bottom: World Bank, Inset: World Bank OInside back cover: WARDA (Boubakary Cisse) Australia United Nations Japan Peru and international organizations. These 64 Members Back Cover: CIP (Paul Stapleton) Austria Ford Foundation Kellogg Foundation Philippines provide the human, technical, intellectual and Bangladesh France Kenya Portugal financial resources that underpin the CGIAR's Belgium Germany Republic of Korea Rockefeller Foundation Brazil Gulf Cooperation Council global partnerships forged to improve agriculture Luxembourg Romania Canada of the Arab States South Africa Russian Federation and natural resource management in the China India Spain Thailand developing world. Colombia Indonesia Sweden Turkey Commission of the Inter-American Switzerland Uganda European Community Development Bank Syngenta Foundation for \United Kingdom In countries that directly benefit from CGIAR International Development Sustainable Agriculture United Nations Development activities, government agencies, civil society Research Centre Syrian Arab Republic Programme organizations, private sector players and farmers' Malaysia United Nations Environment Mexico Programme groups work with CGIAR scientists to combat 64 Morocco United States of America poverty, hunger and environmental degradation. Netherlands World Bank This report celebrates the partnerships through which demand-driven research is conducted to mold discoveries made in the laboratory and the field into international public goods. These public goods are the tools with which regional, national and local organizations -- as well as individual farm families -- help to foster economic growth and build more sustainable livelihoods for all. Millions of people worldwide benefit directly from CGIAR innovations and interventions, while thousands have a hand in producing the international public goods from which these benefits derive. But the process begins with the contributions of the few, the 64 Members of the CGIAR. PRODUCTION CREDITS Design Patricia Hord.Graphik Design Editing Peter Fredenburg Printing Jarboe Printing Production CGIAR Secretariat with support from the Office of the Publisher, World Bank CGIAR at a Glance: Working Together 2 Message from the Chair and Director -- 3 Power of Partnerships: Strength Through Renewal Science Council: The Past Is Prologue 6 Center Alliance: Gaining Depth 8 Partnerships in Science for Development 10 FAO-CGIAR: Ever-Expanding and Fruitful Collaboration 11 People's Republic of China: Long History of Partnership 12 Democratic Republic of Congo: Facing Up to Challenges 13 Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences: 14 Aligning Cooperation with Overseas Development Assistance Goals Systemwide Genetic Resources Program: 15 Where It All Comes Together Members' Perspective: 17 Engage Civil Society and Embrace Diversity Innovation Marketplace: 19 Honoring the Best of the Best Centers Supported by the CGIAR 21 Innovation Through Partnership 37 Science Awards: Recognizing Excellence in 2006 38 Generation Challenge Programme: 40 National Scientists Take the Lead HarvestPlus Challenge Program: 41 Novel Foods Forge Novel Partnerships Challenge Program for Water and Food: 42 Making a River Basin a Community Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program: 43 4WD traction for IAR4D A Global CGIAR 44 Performance Measurement: 45 Results, Potential and Perceptions Executive Council: Guiding and Facilitating 48 System Office: Fostering Internal and External Partnerships 49 Executive Summary 2006 Financials 51 Who's Who 62 CGIAR Members 63 The CGIAR 64 The CGIAR 1971-2006 65 Facts about the CGIAR in 2006 66 Acronyms & Abbreviations 67 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 1 The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), established in 1971, is a strategic partnership of countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations supporting the work of 15 international Centers. In collaboration with national agricultural research systems, civil society and the private sector, the CGIAR fosters sustainable agricultural growth by applying high-quality science to benefit the poor through stronger food security, better human nutrition and health, higher incomes, and improved management of natural resources. In 2006, CGIAR Members contributed US$429 million -- the world's single largest investment in generating public goods for the benefit of poor agricultural communities. 5 The CGIAR has five areas of focus: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION of crops, livestock, fisheries, forests and natural resources; ENHANCING NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS through joint research, policy support, training and knowledge sharing; GERMPLASM IMPROVEMENT for priority crops, livestock, trees and fish; GERMPLASM COLLECTION, CHARACTERIZA- TION AND CONSERVATION, as the genetic resources that the CGIAR holds in public trust, and makes available to all, include some of the world's largest genebanks; and POLICY RESEARCH on matters that have a major impact on agriculture, food, health, disseminating new technologies, and managing and conserving natural resources. 2 2006 Annual Report Six years into its reform program, the Consultative Group at the heart of international agricultural research focuses on its many links with the scientific community, civil society, policymakers and the private sector Partnerships for development -- when they are genuine, coherent and focused -- strengthen the partners involved, as well as their impact. This understanding of the power of partnerships drove the redesign of the CGIAR that commenced in 2001. The changes were many and far-reaching. The Executive Council was restructured to enable shareholders and stakeholders to join together in energizing the decision-making processes. The Science Council came into being with a CGIAR Chair Katherine Sierra and Director Francisco Reifschneider. mandate to reach out to partners in the global science community and bring their collective wisdom to bear on CGIAR-supported research. A key objective of the new Challenge Programs A specific aspect of partnerships was a highlight was to offer additional opportunities for partner- of the 2006 Annual General Meeting (AGM06), ships across the CGIAR System and beyond, at which the Stakeholder Meeting segment took with civil society organizations (CSOs), scientists, the form of a Civil Society-CGIAR Forum that policymakers, nontraditional donors and the private reconfirmed the commitment of the CGIAR System sector. The CGIAR virtual System Office created to practical and effective forms of cooperation with a more effective partnership among the CGIAR CSOs. About 100 representatives of CSOs attended System's service units. the forum, together with CGIAR Members, Center scientists and others. Its purpose was to review the Increasingly, in the years following the launch of the state of relations between CSOs and the CGIAR, to reform program, the significance of partnerships assess strengths and weaknesses, and to plan for took hold as central to the way in which the CGIAR future collaboration that would enable CSOs and functioned, and new opportunities opened up for the CGIAR to work in harmony and so enhance their the CGIAR System to collaborate more closely and beneficial impacts on the lives of the poor, natural effectively than before with civil society. Linkages resource management and economic growth. were enhanced with the private sector, too, through A representative advisory group provided critical the CGIAR Private Sector Committee, which served inputs to the CGIAR Secretariat over the several as a conduit for a continuing exchange of ideas and months that it planned and organized the forum. experience, and as an instrument for developing Preceding the forum was an online virtual innovative programs such as staff exchanges and conversation that ran for around 4 weeks. Over 150 knowledge sharing on research management. people took part in this conversation, which enabled potential participants in the forum to exchange With the reform program now in its sixth year, the points of view beforehand, thereby creating for the effectiveness of research partnerships is the focus forum a foundation of mutual understanding derived of this CGIAR Annual Report 2006. Reports from from shared interests. Another important feature the Centers describe different kinds of partnerships of the forum was its accompanying Innovation among farmers, across regions, and between the Marketplace, which showcased some 50 existing private sector and CSOs -- all, of course, involving CSO-CGIAR partnerships. In another first, CGIAR Centers. Each of these reports demonstrates conclusions reached at the forum were presented the effectiveness of, and therefore the need for, to the AGM Business Meeting. partnerships as CGIAR Centers seek to continue building on the guiding principles of the reform These developments are heartening, but the program: efficiency, efficacy, transparency, somewhat rocky relations between the CGIAR accountability and participation. and CSOs in the past allow no room for euphoria. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 3 Although the CGIAR and CSOs have always as "giving voice to civil society stakeholders shared compatible interests, periodic tensions within the CGIAR to strengthen mutual learning have surfaced, and harmonization of effort has and to enable the CGIAR to better shape its proved elusive. Nevertheless, the CGIAR and research agenda and implementation for the CSOs maintained mutual contacts and engaged in benefit of the poor." consultations on matters of common interest such as ensuring universal access to plant genetic resources, The strategic framework declared that the overall the impact of modern agriculture on the environment, goals of CGIAR engagement with CSOs were to intellectual property rights and international improve research effectiveness and impact for agreements that aim to protect the earth's biodiversity. development, Joint positions were formulated on some issues. bring innovative ideas and new perspectives to Collaboration was evident at the practical or working CGIAR research challenges, and level as well, as a survey identified hundreds of exemplify public accountability and transparency CSO-Center partnerships. Significant support for through global public fora. continued collaboration emerged at the CGIAR ministerial-level meeting held in Lucerne, Within that framework, CSOs and the CGIAR have Switzerland, in 1995. The Lucerne Declaration explored the means of collaborating at different and Action Program urged the CGIAR "to convene levels and in creative ways. (For the full text of the a committee of nongovernmental organizations strategic framework paper, please see www.cgiar. and a committee of the private sector as a means org/csos/strategy_cso_cgiar_2007.pdf.) Following of improving dialogue among the CGIAR, the private the Civil Society-CGIAR Forum, the CGIAR sector, and members of civil society who are launched a competitive grants program to support interested in the same issues as the CGIAR." innovative projects involving civil society partners and other stakeholders, promote partnerships The upshots were the NGO Committee, the between the CGIAR and CSOs, and create new Private Sector Committee and a short-lived avenues by which a growing network of CSO and committee involving international science bodies. CGIAR partners could continue to learn from one The NGO Committee fell dormant after some another by actively sharing knowledge. Over 150 years and, in line with the findings of an external concept notes were submitted, and grant agree- panel that reviewed CGIAR relationships with its ments for the most promising four or five partner- partners, the Group decided to develop alternative ships are expected to be signed in October 2007. models of CSO-CGIAR collaboration. A key feature of this new effort was its grounding on a strategic Many other avenues for partnerships with CSOs framework that defined the principles of engagement are being explored, including the creation of an 4 2006 Annual Report Internet portal and a site for interactive blogging. to research for development into the CGIAR. These activities make the most of a period We are confident that enhanced engagement of transition through which the CSO-CGIAR with CSOs will enable the voice of the South relationship can grow into a powerful instrument to be heard more strongly than ever throughout of research for development. This is part of a the CGIAR System, with a positive impact on broader transition that took place in the CGIAR all the work we do. in the year under review, which was a year of transition for the CGIAR System itself. CGIAR Chair Ian Johnson (UK) ended his term in April Katherine Sierra 2006 and was succeeded in September by CGIAR Chair Katherine Sierra (USA). CGIAR Director Francisco J.B. Reifschneider (Brazil) prepared to leave office Francisco J.B. Reifschneider after more than 6 years, in the interest of creating CGIAR Director space for renewal. The next director, Ren Wang (China), will assume office in mid-2007. Per Pinstrup-Andersen (Denmark), the first chair of the Science Council, ended his 3-year term and was succeeded by Rudy Rabbinge (Netherlands). Meanwhile, for the first time in the history of the CGIAR, Members participated in a symposium on measures to ensure that approved System priorities are fully funded. This was followed -- again, for the first time -- by a symposium on alignment. As these events unfold, CSO-CGIAR partnerships will continue to grow in strength, bringing the power of new perspectives and new approaches Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 5 To improve the options for scientific and techno- Priorities and strategies. Following the endorse- logical collaboration available to the CGIAR, the ment in 2005 of CGIAR System research priorities Science Council's Standing Panel on Mobilizing focusing on problems for which the CGIAR is likely Science has commissioned a study on to have the greatest impact, the attention of the CGIAR Centers' partnerships with civil society Science Council turned in 2006 to aligning the organizations (CSOs). The results of the study are research portfolio to implement these priorities scheduled to be delivered in August 2007. They within 3 years. In addition, the Science Council are expected to contribute to the CGIAR's renewed has been involved in strategic studies to, for efforts to put CSO engagement in the mainstream example, develop a strategy for genomics research of CGIAR processes, from setting the agenda and in the CGIAR, define opportunities for handling planning and implementing research, to evaluating intellectual property in regard to international public the CGIAR's impact on food security, welfare and goods, and clarify the relationship of ethics and development in rural communities. CGIAR research. The study is expected to establish a foundation for Monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Following the new Centers' decision-making concerning present and approach to make the M&E of CGIAR Centers more future partnerships with CSOs. It will be based on streamlined and cost-effective, several external six case studies of Centers' ongoing partnerships reviews were completed in 2006. These include a with CSOs that focus on agricultural science and follow-up review of the recent external program and technology. Case studies were selected with the management review (EPMR) of the International aim of achieving a balance between partners that Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and the are nongovernmental organizations on the one finalization of EPMRs of the Center for International hand and farmer organizations on the other. A Forestry Research, International Center for balance was also sought between partnerships Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, International focusing on upstream research and those engaged Livestock Research Institute, International Water in the delivery of Centers' outputs. Management Institute, World Agroforestry Centre and WorldFish Center. EPMRs of the Africa Rice Demand for a study on CGIAR Centers' partner- Center, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, ships with CSOs originated in a special ministerial International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and meeting in February 1995 in Lucerne, Switzerland. International Potato Center were commissioned in At the meeting, mutually beneficial linkages 2006 for implementation in 2007, as were external between the CGIAR and civil society were formally reviews for the Challenge Program on Water and recognized as being critical imperatives to a fully Food and the HarvestPlus Challenge Program. effective CGIAR System. Furthermore, results from a CGIAR Center collaboration survey completed A review and impact assessment of training in 2005 suggest that, although roughly 560 activities in the CGIAR was completed early in 2006. of Centers' collaborators (17%) are CSOs, The study analyzed training information and data for Centers rarely mention these collaborations the period 1990-2004; interviewed stakeholders and as being highly relevant. The study aims to shed Center staff in three regions; surveyed ex-trainees, light on this paradox and, ultimately, to contribute CGIAR researchers and research partners; and to improving the relevance and success of included a summary analysis of evaluations and partnerships between CGIAR Centers and impact assessment conducted by the Centers CSOs. It will document the experiences provided themselves. One key finding was that, although by Center-CSO partnerships, including CSOs' the shift to project funding has diminished the points of view, and highlight how and why these longer-term commitment to formal training in partnerships are important for mobilizing science Centers, collaborative research has brought an and fulfilling the CGIAR mandate. In addition, increase in capacity strengthening. Some Centers it will identify and disseminate the lessons learned increased the number of short-term training events, from these partnership experiences and attempt including those targeting farmers. The training has to arrive at a better understanding of the factors in general been high quality and, judging by the behind successes and failures. perceptions of stakeholders, effective -- but how much so depends on the strength of the national The study is expected to help bring about the agricultural research systems (NARS) involved. development of a CGIAR policy to strengthen impact and relations with CSOs and ultimately to guide the The report found that many Centers had no central evolution of ways of working in the CGIAR. node for coordinating training and that compiling 6 2006 Annual Report A study on research Centers' partnership experiences with civil society organizations aims to point the way toward expanded and more effective links and accessing data was difficult. This limited the benefit-cost ratios under this scenario range use of past experiences to design future activities. between 1.12 and 1.64. Including only benefits The findings of the report were consistent with the reported up to 2004, the ratio falls below unity approach to training outlined in the CGIAR System in one conservative scenario in which only priorities (mainly as capacity building within the "substantially demonstrated" benefits are research priorities), but it cautioned on the need counted. Under all scenarios, the vast majority for a mechanism to coordinate training within each of documented benefits stem from a limited Center. A key recommendation was that training range of activities, mostly biological control should be formally and fully recognized as an and, to a lesser extent, crop genetic improvement. indispensable component of CGIAR activities, The report shows that documented benefits both for strengthening NARS and for contributing well exceed total agricultural R&D investments to the execution of Center research. An important in the region, but significant scope remains to recommendation to Centers is that they increase document them better. inter-Center coordination and cooperation. Impact assessment. A study of the impacts Rudy Rabbinge of CGIAR and partner research in sub-Saharan Science Council Chair Africa was completed in 2006. Using meta-analysis to quantify aggregate economic benefits, the report finds total investments by the CGIAR and partners justified under a wide range of assumptions, provided that benefits continue at their reported levels beyond 2004. The aggregate Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 7 The 15 research Centers supported by the CGIAR The Alliance unanimously decided to submit ratified in April 2006 the Alliance Principles and a coherent and coordinated set of proposals in Procedures, which include mechanisms for conflict answer to the CGIAR call for proposals for new resolution. Ratification was a watershed because Challenge Programs. This was a departure from decisions made by the Alliance of the CGIAR history and what happened with the first call for Centers are binding for all members. proposals for Challenge Programs. A coordinated set of proposals builds scientific synergies where The formal bodies of the Alliance are the Alliance needed and thereby improves the quality and Board, Alliance Executive, Alliance Deputy Executive relevance of the proposals. (Science), Alliance Deputy Executive (Finance) and Alliance Office, the last of which is the facilitating The Alliance continued to work with the Science agent for the work of the Alliance. The chairs of Council on the improvement of performance each body are elected by their constituency indicators. It contributed to ongoing thinking on according to a transparent process. The chief the funding of the priorities by providing a paper alliance officer is based at the International Fund that analyzed the gaps and overlaps in Center for Agricultural Development headquarters in activities for four of the System priorities. The Rome. The geographically dispersed Alliance paper was used as an input to the work of the Office functions by virtual means. Individual Ad-Hoc Committee on Funding the Priorities. Alliance Office staff members are hired through an international or national search process and All Centers with genebanks signed agreements managed by their home Center on behalf of the with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Alliance. As each Center is a member of the United Nations, which acted for the governing Alliance, all Center staff members contributing to body of the International Treaty for Plant Genetic collective action among the Centers are also Resources for Food and Agriculture. This puts members of the Alliance. the collections held in trust by the Centers -- over 600,000 accessions of crop, forage and Several specific accomplishments were achieved agroforestry genetic resources -- at the heart of in 2006. the treaty's multilateral system for germplasm access and benefit-sharing. And it positions the The regional plans for collective action in Centers to play a central role in implementing the sub-Saharan Africa are now essentially developed, treaty and developing a global conservation and the Alliance is discussing implementation system (see page 15). mechanisms. The Executive Council of the CGIAR approved the Alliance proposal that it provide Following the first phase of upgrading the oversight through the Alliance Executive (and the in-trust collections, supported by the World Bank, Alliance Board, in cases of conflict) to the plans and the Systemwide Genetic Resources Program their implementation both in West and Central Africa obtained approval for a second phase requiring and in East and Southern Africa. Alliance governance an investment of US$10.5 million. This supports of regional plans has the advantage of holding further upgrading at the 11 Centers that hold large transaction costs down by administering work with plant collections in trust, combined with collective existing bodies instead of creating new structures. action to integrate and share standards and The ratification of principles and procedures is among several recent accomplishments of the newly formulated Alliance of CGIAR Centers 8 2006 Annual Report The Alliance Board and Alliance Executive meet at International Center for Tropical Agriculture headquarters, Cali, Colombia. methodologies, thereby improving Systemwide On matters of governance, the Alliance Board held efficiency and effectiveness. the ninth Board Training Program following the Annual General Meeting 2006. Since 2004, the The 15 Centers have recently decided, through program has trained 145 board members and their Alliance Executive, to develop a large board secretaries in the roles and responsibilities research program on climate change, agriculture of a trustee, in financial and risk management, and and food security in collaboration with the global in human resources within the CGIAR System. environmental change community. The chairs and directors of the four international global We feel confident that the Alliance, in the short environmental change programs* and their joint time since it was so formulated, has acquired the projects have likewise formally approved the momentum to achieve concrete results in the preparation of a collaborative research program coming years for the benefit of many of the poorest with the Alliance. In joint discussions, scientific communities in the world. plans are being finalized for each of the research priority areas identified, and a joint fund-raising strategy is under development. Jim Godfrey In follow up to the stripe review commissioned Alliance Board Chair by the Alliance in 2005, the Centers are pleased to report that they all have internal controls in place Joachim Voss to identify and control risk and review Center Alliance Executive Chair effectiveness. The systems are designed to manage, rather than try to eliminate, the risk of failure in achieving Centers' strategic objectives, and thereby provide reasonable assurance against material misstatement or loss. * DIVERSITAS, International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and World Climate Research Programme, which together comprise the Earth System Science Partnership. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 9 IN SCIENCE FOR Cooperation between the Food and Agriculture Collaboration between FAO and several CGIAR Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the Centers on the Comprehensive Assessment of CGIAR dates back to the 1960s, long before most Water Management in Agriculture is considered of the international agricultural research centers particularly successful. The objective of this were created. Indeed, it began some years before initiative is to provide a comprehensive picture of the earliest centers now supported by the CGIAR the situation prevailing in water management in coalesced into the CGIAR System. agriculture, and of its implications in terms of policy formation and investments for food production, At first the focus was on genetic resources, environmental protection and rural livelihood. The but over time cooperation has expanded and results will enable better investment and manage- diversified to cover governance, strategic ment decisions on water and agriculture in the near planning, normative and technical cooperation, future and over the next 50 years. and information exchange. Cooperation is most extensive in crop production, addressing the A survey on the CGIAR Centers' collaboration development of improved crop varieties, the with other institutions -- conducted in 2006 by management of land and water resources, and the Science Council Secretariat -- found that FAO other topics such as plant protection, seed was the only organization among the 3,000 systems, conservation agriculture and water identified that works with all of the Centers. management. Animal husbandry and health, Similarly, an evaluation of FAO partnerships and forestry, fisheries, natural resource management alliances identified the CGIAR and its 15 Centers and capacity building -- with special attention as FAO's most frequent partners, and the to strengthening national agricultural research relationship with them was described as systems -- are other important fields of collaboration. especially intensive and positive. One of the oldest cooperative relationships in modern agricultural research is also among the strongest today and most essential for the future The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources Budget limitations and the need for greater for Food and Agriculture, adopted by the FAO efficiency and effectiveness in the drive to achieve Conference in 2001 and entering into force in 2004, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) point to recognizes the importance of the CGIAR Centers a need for the periodic review and updating of joint and their ex situ collections of crop germplasm. activities between FAO and the CGIAR. The shared Under Article 15, the treaty gives the Centers a challenge of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger legal framework and provides for contracting (MDG 1), while ensuring environmental sustainability FAO-CGIAR collaboration will parties to give the Centers access to plant genetic (MDG 7), is a natural starting point for focusing enable better decisions on water resources for food and agriculture. On 16 October cooperative work. An FAO-CGIAR joint program and agriculture management over the next half century. 2006, the director general of FAO, acting on for the rehabilitation of agricultural and forestry behalf of the governing body of the treaty, signed research for food security in the Democratic agreements with the CGIAR Centers placing their Republic of Congo, initiated in 2006 and funded ex situ collections under the treaty (see page 15). by the European Commission, is one good example (see page 13). Another example of fruitful CGIAR-FAO collaboration is the country-driven preparation of the First Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resourc- es. The report will be considered in September 2007 by the First International Technical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources, to be hosted by the government of Switzerland. Several CGIAR Centers and the CGIAR's Systemwide Genetic Resources Program have been associated with the report's development from its earliest stages. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 11 China's history of cooperation in agricultural Capacity building. Since the 1980s, CGIAR research and rural development with various Centers have trained over 4,000 Chinese scientists international organizations and countries has been who have subsequently risen to senior positions in long and fruitful. Collaboration between China and their own institutions, 150 of them becoming the CGIAR dates back to the CGIAR's first years in project coordinators and 40 of them director or the early 1970s. Initial collaboration covered only deputy director. Ten have become presidents of limited areas of research, but the collaboration provincial academies of agricultural science or deepened fundamentally after China became a government department heads. Ever more Chinese Member of the CGIAR System in 1984. During the scientists work as internationally recruited staff last 3 decades, the CGIAR's collaboration with in the CGIAR and its Centers or serve on the China has been very successful. Executive Council or as board members. Germplasm exchange. China has received nearly Information exchange and conference organization. 50,000 accessions of crop genetic material from Over the past 30 years, China has received more CGIAR Centers and developed 252 crop varieties than 110,000 copies of agricultural research using their genetic background. Among them, 160 publications from CGIAR Centers and individual are wheat, 25 rice, 18 potatoes, 16 sorghum, 15 scientists. These have helped Chinese researchers peanuts and 12 maize. The combined planted area better understand their research areas in the light of these varieties has reached 5.6 million hectares. of broader prospectives. More than 40 international Meanwhile, China has provided more than 20,000 conferences and workshops with sponsorship by accessions of various crop germplasm to CGIAR CGIAR Centers have taken place in China -- and the Centers for evaluation and distribution. CGIAR will hold its 2007 Annual General Meeting in Beijing. Meanwhile, China has sent more than 2,000 Scientific collaboration. Over 50 Chinese institutions scientists to attend international conferences and have collaborated closely with CGIAR Centers. scientific exchanges abroad as part of its collaboration More than 200 collaborative projects between with the CGIAR, thus enhancing international China and CGIAR Centers have ranged widely collaboration and heightening China's global impact. over agricultural research, extension, education, production and processing. These projects include Construction of a collaborative platform. The germplasm collection, storage, characterization, growing strength of the China-CGIAR partnership exchange and utilization; crop breeding and is reflected by the establishment in China of biotechnology; integrated pest and natural liaison offices by seven CGIAR Centers and joint resource management; sustainable development; laboratories by five of them. Particularly notable macro agricultural policy; postharvest processing; is the recent move to set up an International personnel training and capacity building; and Potato Center-China center for Asia and the international academic and information exchange. Pacific. These strengthened ties indicate a Nearly 40 collaborative projects have received brilliant future for the China-CGIAR partnership national or provincial awards. in agricultural research and collaboration. Active in international agriculture research since the first years of the Consultative Group, China will host the 2007 Annual General Meeting China has developed 252 crop varieties using CGIAR germplasm. 12 2006 Annual Report Agricultural research in the Democratic Republic Musa (banana and plantain) is the second most of Congo (DRC) was until 1970 organized mainly important staple food in the DRC after cassava through the INEAC, the national institute for and is particularly important to the poor. The major agronomic studies that maintained its headquarters constraints to Musa productivity are low soil fertility, at Yangambi and more than 30 centers and banana bunchy top virus, banana weevil and banana stations in different agricultural environments. Xanthomonas bacterial wilt, which is spreading The diffusion of its high-quality research results to across eastern DRC at 30 kilometers per year. farmers large and small fueled exports of palm oil, High-yielding and resistant Musa hybrids from the coffee, cocoa, rubber and tea. Production of all Honduran Foundation of Agricultural Research, these commodities has dramatically declined since introduced through Bioversity International, 1987. One reason for this decline is disintegrating are being tested by INERA at the University of transport infrastructure that cripples the distribution Kisangani. Meanwhile, Bioversity supports one of inputs and marketing of produce; another is study on banana and plantain diversity in the limited capacity in agricultural training, research northeastern Congo Basin and another characterizing and extension following staff localization in 1973. bananas in eastern Congo. Plantain varieties are being collected, established in field collections, According to the World Bank, 92% of households duplicated in vitro and transferred from Kisangani to in the DRC now experience food insecurity. Poverty Bioversity's International Transit Center for exchange. and the resulting unsustainable exploitation of forest resources threaten future development. The recent emergence of political stability presents many opportunities for new partnerships Higher education in agriculture was until 1990 to improve crops, forestry, aquaculture and found mostly at the Yangambi Institute of Agronomy, fisheries. Efficient agricultural development but today the universities of Kisangani, Kinshasa demands a coherent education and research and Lubumbashi also have agricultural programs. policy arising from a plan to be devised by Agricultural research remains constrained by INERA in partnership with universities shortages of qualified scientific staff and teachers, and CGIAR Centers. scientific equipment, and Internet connections, as well as by the lack of coherent policies on education and research and development. Dr. B. Dhed'a Djailo Academic Secretary General Throughout the DRC's difficulties, research Yangambi Institute of Agronomy Centers supported by the CGIAR have been present, providing training -- notably resulting in the formation of the National Institute for Agronomic Study and Research (INERA by its French acronym) with staff trained by the International Livestock Research Institute and Horn plantain is collected in the village of Yalokombe in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo for conservation and exchange. World Agroforestry Centre -- and new crop cultivars to enhance food security. An important contribution from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, though INERA, has been cassava resistant to the cassava mosaic virus. Resistant varieties are in the pipeline to nongovernmental organizations in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the South-East Consortium for International Development of the United States. The recent emergence of political stability presents many opportunities for new partnerships to improve crops, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 13 Japan refines its priorities to ensure the continued relevance of its long tradition of collaborative international agricultural research The Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS) is the sole national institute in Japan that undertakes comprehensive research on agriculture, forestry and fisheries technology in developing areas of the tropics and subtropics through international collaboration and cooperation. As such, JIRCAS is a focal institution of the CGIAR and has developed strong partnerships in the CGIAR System. The successor Japan collaborates in applying DREB genes to develop novel crop varieties organization of the Tropical Agricultural Research that tolerate drought, salinity and low temperature. Center following its reorganization in 1993, JIRCAS has enjoyed a long history of collaborative research programs with, since its establishment, almost all Aside from research programs, JIRCAS has of the CGIAR Centers. In 2006, JIRCAS sent nine organized international symposia cosponsored researchers to engage in collaborative research by the CGIAR. In 2005, the international symposium in six CGIAR Centers. Perspectives of R&D for Improving Agricultural Productivity in Africa took place in Tokyo. In 2006, The Second Medium-Term Plan (2006-2011) marking the International Year of Deserts and of JIRCAS sets out two major programs in line Desertification, the symposium Living with with Japan's policy on overseas development Deserts was held in Tokyo. assistance. The first is research and development of agricultural, forestry and fisheries technologies Another successful innovative partnership is the that aim to solve global food and environmental Japan-CGIAR Fellowship Program. The Japanese problems. Second is the collection, analysis and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries publication of information revealing trends in launched the program in 2004, and JIRCAS international food, agriculture, forestry, fisheries administers it. The fellowship was designed to help and farming systems. JIRCAS will continue to young Japanese scientists expand their expertise strive to achieve the goal of accurately determining in international agricultural research for development. and satisfying the demands of the international In 2006, during the fellowship's third phase, 10 community. To achieve this goal, the new fellows worked at CGIAR Centers for about 2 Medium-Term Plan calls for JIRCAS to conduct months each, bringing to 32 the number of fellows effective strategic collaboration with CGIAR who have successfully completed the program. Centers, thereby continuing to achieve greater Many have spoken very positively of their experience. scientific contributions to improved agriculture in developing countries. "The program allowed me to become acquainted with many researchers from various countries JIRCAS's past contributions are legion. For and to learn advanced research techniques," example, it introduced to the world the dehydration reports Yuhei Hirono, who completed his research responsive element binding (DREB) genes in the fellowship at the International Rice Research model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. DREB genes Institute. "This experience was precious for me. control the expression of more than 40 Arabidopsis The fellowship program is a valuable opportunity genes responsible for tolerance to such environmental for young researchers to broaden their horizons." stresses as drought, salinity and low temperature. Using these genes, JIRCAS has started collaborative projects with several CGIAR Centers to develop novel varieties of resilient crops. 14 2006 Annual Report The long process of building a coherent global system to govern the conservation and exchange of crop genetic resources is finally coming to fruition -- and celebrated by an award for the genebanks at the heart of the matter CGIAR genebanks hold the world's Several developments in 2006 made it a banner The agreements that conferred this in-trust largest collections of plant diversity year for ensuring durable world food security. status were interim, pending renegotiation for food and agriculture. Genebanks were upgraded, new agreements on of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic access to accessions and information were signed, Resources to harmonize it with the Convention on and the Global Crop Diversity Trust made its first Biological Diversity. That long process resulted in grant of support -- to a genebank of the CGIAR. the legally binding International Treaty on Plant These efforts were recognized with the presentation Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which of the CGIAR Partnership Award to the System-wide came into force in 2004 and paved the way for the Genetic Resources Program. Centers to sign new and definitive in-trust agreements with the governing body of the treaty Eleven of the Centers supported by the CGIAR in October 2006. manage genebanks, which together contain over 600,000 accessions of about 3,000 staple crop, The signings give legal weight to the central role forage and agroforestry species essential to human that the in-trust collections will play in the multilateral food security and nutrition. These genebanks, exchange system established by the treaty. This which are fundamental to the CGIAR's work on system will guarantee free, long-term access to plant improvement, hold the world's largest some of the world's most important collections of collections of plant diversity for food and agriculture, agricultural biodiversity, while requiring commercial repositories not only of plant diversity but also of users to share benefits with the global community. information and expertise unique in the scientific At its first meeting in June 2006, the governing and agricultural spheres. The information, and the body of the treaty adopted a standard material accessions it describes, are freely available to all. transfer agreement that sets out terms governing access and benefit sharing for the multilateral In 1994, the CGIAR Centers, recognizing the status system and will accompany all transfers of plant of their collections as global public goods and their material by the CGIAR Centers and all parties to importance to human development, placed the the treaty, which number more than 110. collections under the aegis of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United The in-trust crop genetic resources are vital to the Nations, held in trust for the world community. CGIAR's achieving its objectives, particularly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 15 System research priority to promote the conservation in 2004, announced its first long-term conservation and characterization of staple crops. An investment grant to a Center collection -- the International in securing the collections is thus an investment in Rice Genebank at the International Rice the CGIAR's chief goals. Over the past decade, the Research Institute -- at the CGIAR Annual CGIAR Centers carefully reviewed their genebank General Meeting in 2006. operations and calculated the costs of effectively and efficiently conserving the collections under The capacity of the CGIAR Centers to meet their care. This allowed them to identify practical the policy and technical expectations that their and strategic actions to ensure that they can in-trust role has created is greatly enhanced by meet their obligations as trustees. their participation in the Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP). Established in 1994, The costing studies provided a sound basis for the SGRP has brought coherence, effectiveness securing World Bank support to upgrade the and efficiency to the genetic resources activities collections. Phase 1 of the upgrading, budgeted of the CGIAR System. In 2006, the CGIAR honored at US$13.6 million, ended in 2006. Its achievements the SGRP and its participants -- the 11 CGIAR are impressive, reflecting the twin targets of the genebanks, International Food Policy Research project: to upgrade the facilities at the 11 Centers Institute, FAO and SGRP Secretariat -- with its with genebanks and to put those facilities to work. prestigious partnership award, accepted on their Following the recommendations of an external behalf by Jane Toll, the SGRP coordinator. The review of the project, a second phase got underway award recognized the effectiveness of the team's in January 2007. Phase 2 will complete the efforts to protect the in-trust collections under upgrading of the in-trust collections and support their care as well as the leadership of the Centers the CGIAR's intention to play a central role in the in the global plant genetic resources community. development and implementation of a global system for the conservation and use of crop The CGIAR Centers have made valuable diversity in support of the International Treaty on strides -- many of them over the past Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. year -- toward a shared vision of a global system for the conservation and use of vital The costing studies were also an important crop diversity. Their efforts have positioned the contribution to the Global Crop Diversity CGIAR to give coherence and leadership to the Trust's campaign for an endowment fund to global system, placing the in-trust collections at support in perpetuity the world's most important the heart of the matter, where they will underpin crop genetic resources collections, including food security for humanity's future. those held by the CGIAR Centers. The trust, established by the CGIAR Centers and FAO 16 2006 Annual Report The CGIAR and its critics must seek opportunities to learn from each other with mutual respect for their differing roles, views and approaches Many Members of the CGIAR joined the chorus of of the UK's Department for International support for new efforts to enhance partnerships Development; and with civil society organizations (CSOs), when it Franklin Moore, director for environment and came time to discuss this key agenda item during science policy at the US Agency for International the Annual General Meeting 2006 (AGM06) Development. Business Meeting. Three Members -- Norway, United Kingdom and United States -- were The responses given below to seven especially supportive, not just then but earlier, in forward-looking questions about the CGIAR's the months leading up to the Civil Society-CGIAR collaboration with CSOs are a synthesis of their Forum held at AGM06. replies, which proved remarkably congruent. Attracting 400 participants, among them about In partnerships with CSOs, how can the CGIAR 100 CSO representatives, the forum reaffirmed Centers reconcile their desire to enhance the CGIAR's commitment to working with this development impact with their need to remain numerous, diverse and vital group of stakeholders. focused on strategic research leading to the Its overarching goal was to highlight innovative generation of international public goods? ways of making research and development more relevant and effective in improving rural livelihoods. We need to challenge the view that, when CGIAR To this end, the event fostered the sharing of Centers engage with CSOs, they are necessarily information about current and past partnerships doing development rather than the research they with community-based organizations, universities see as their mandate. On the contrary, the purpose and nongovernmental organizations, and it gathered of this engagement is to help ensure that research a bountiful harvest of ideas for improving and is sharply focused on the needs of the poor, as expanding the CGIAR's engagement with them. illustrated by the dozens of partnerships featured in the Innovation Marketplace at AGM06. There need The idea of the forum having captured the not be a dichotomy between research and imagination of representatives from Norway, development in these partnerships but rather the United Kingdom and United States in particular, kind of careful integration that generates relevant as mentioned above, they committed funds to solutions that work in the field. cover the costs of the event and of the Pilot Competitive Grant Program announced at its What are some ways in which the CGIAR can foster conclusion. To find out more about the views that collaboration with CSOs? led these three Members to pledge this support, the CGIAR Secretariat consulted recently with The CGIAR and the CSO community must seek Ruth Haug, professor and head of the opportunities to learn from and listen to each other Department of International Environmental with mutual respect for their differing roles, views and Development Studies at the Norwegian and approaches. To this end, the CGIAR needs to University of Life Sciences; meet CSOs in their own arenas, in addition to David Howlett, team leader for growth and inviting CSOs to attend CGIAR events. In these livelihoods in the Central Research Department encounters, the CGIAR needs to show that CSO Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 17 perspectives, even those that meet opposition, In what ways have CSOs influenced Members' can still influence CGIAR decisions and actions. views about agricultural research and development? Given the great number and diversity of CSOs in the North are well organized, and the CSOs involved in agricultural research and quality of their work is steadily improving. As a development, how can the CGIAR work most consequence, they exert growing influence on effectively with them? research -- both in the CGIAR and more generally -- with respect to its environmental impacts, The CGIAR should have a blueprint for developing relevance for the poor and benefits for particular genuine partnerships with diverse actors at groups such as women, indigenous peoples and different levels in pursuit of clear purposes. others who are often marginalized. Another of National and local CSO partners are critically these CSOs' concerns centers on genetically needed for identifying problems, facilitating modified organisms. The question is this: How well dialogue with technology users and fostering do they represent voices from the South? Perhaps, rural innovation through shared projects. But only somewhat. So, how can we do a better job of projects should not be the exclusive focus. The listening to Southern voices, of providing resources CGIAR also needs CSO allies at the global level for this purpose, so that Southern partners also to make the case for agricultural research as have the chance to challenge our assumptions? a key contributor to economic growth and social development. In addition, individual Centers and How should the CGIAR handle its relationships the CGIAR as a whole need to form alliances with CSOs that are highly critical of its actions with CSOs through which they can exchange and positions on certain issues? constructive criticism and, when necessary, challenge cherished assumptions. The CGIAR should not shun criticism from CSOs but rather remain open to their feedback and to What can we expect to gain from projects new options for improving performance. to be developed through the recently created Pilot Competitive Grant Program? It is important for CSOs to have ownership of the program, so it is not viewed as just a way for the CGIAR to provide CSO "clients" with financial assistance. The purpose should rather be to learn how the CGIAR can best work with diverse stakeholders. This, in turn, requires a conscientiously facilitated learning process across projects grounded on shared monitoring and evaluation. The projects also need ways to communicate with one another and to share lessons learned. If successful, the projects can form the beginnings of a CSO-CGIAR network that has the potential to change the way we work. What opportunities might new Challenge Programs present for enhancing CSO-CGIAR collaboration, and how can the programs take advantage of these opportunities? It is important that CSOs be involved early on in these programs, not as an afterthought. Moreover, they should be present, not only to help secure funds, but to ask hard questions about the challenges as defined by the CGIAR and to make contributions that are essential for meeting these challenges. 18 2006 Annual Report Progress in the fight against poverty, hunger and environmental degradation can appear elusive. Global climate change alone is a monumental problem whose solution seems veiled in clouds of complexity. But, like satellite imagery zooming in on cities, villages and individual dwellings, a closer look at local and regional efforts to address global challenges offers a refreshing perspective. In many developing countries, civil society organizations (CSOs) are pairing with such Winners of 2006 Innovation Marketplace with judges and the CGIAR chair. international scientific networks as the CGIAR to tackle everything from malnutrition to women's empowerment, crop improvement and rainforest Fifty of the most effective partnerships submitted were protection. The results are real and gratifying, selected to complete for five Innovation Marketplace Awards especially so regarding the CSO-CGIAR partnerships highlighted at the third and largest Innovation Marketplace, a centerpiece of the CGIAR's 2006 Annual General Meeting. "We're using the award money to expand our work," explained Shawn Baker, HKI's vice president The CGIAR selected more than 50 CSO and regional director for Africa. "Our vision is to partnerships -- the best of the best -- to compete have a presence in at least five more countries over for the 2006 Innovation Marketplace Award. the next 5 years." The eye-catching exhibits offered an unforgettable tribute to the solid accomplishments of CSO-CGIAR Water for Life, a creative partnership between partnerships and a rich legacy of best practices. Fundacion Natura Bolivia and the Center for International Forestry Research, pioneered Five of the partnerships received the Innovation payments for environmental services to conserve Marketplace Awards, including the prestigious threatened cloud rainforests and protect watersheds People's Choice Award. The five awards combined in the Santa Cruz area of Bolivia. Upstream included $30,000 in prize money to be used for landowners receive training in honey production strengthening collaborative capacity. and one artificial beehive for every 10 hectares of threatened rainforest they have conserved for a Eat Orange! combats malnutrition in sub-Saharan year. Downstream users, who suffer severe Africa, where more than 40% of children under age economic losses when water flows are restricted, 5 are vitamin A deficient, significantly worsening contribute to the payment scheme. their risk of blindness and death. A partnership of Helen Keller International (HKI), HarvestPlus "Since December 2006, we've added hundreds of Challenge Program and International Potato hectares of cloud rainforest to the project," said Center, Eat Orange! launched an aggressive Nigel Asquith, director of science for Natura Bolivia. educational and marketing campaign to promote "Local governments, which represent downstream vitamin A-rich orange-fleshed sweetpotatoes, interests, have committed $3,000 to a new prompting more than 115,000 families in Burkina water fund. We're trying to develop neighboring Faso, Mozambique and Niger to incorporate the watersheds in Latin America and link with similar healthful tubers into their diets. efforts in South Africa and India." Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 19 The New Public-Private Partnership to Develop "This award shows donors the importance Irrigated Rice is the outgrowth of an innovative of our work," said Margaret Parker, a university alliance between the Latin American Fund for entomologist who worked with colleague Bruce Irrigated Rice (FLAR by its Spanish acronym) and Parker to establish the partnership. "The award the International Center for Tropical Agriculture. The money is helping to keep up the momentum so partnership, which teams the Center with 14 Latin that we're ready when larger resources arrive." American countries, was created to meet the needs of farmers and industry for innovations to Better Policy and Management Options for make irrigated rice production sustainably efficient, Pastoral Lands is a result of collaboration by the competitive and profitable. The award money will Kitengala Ilparakuo Landowners Association and be used to build FLAR's institutional strength, the the International Livestock Research Institute key to its success in helping poor farmers. Gonzalo (ILRI). Under this partnership, wildlife conservation Zorrilla, FLAR's executive director, is enthusiastic organizations lease land from Kenyan pastoralists about the possibilities. to conserve for seasonal wildlife migrations. Participating families continue to graze their livestock "We're improving the FLAR network and supporting on the land but agree not to fence, develop or sell technical activities at the country level," Zorrilla said. it. Significantly, women who manage households "For example, annual meetings on tropical and receive most of the lease income. temperate environments will enable us to maximize interactions with scientists and researchers." "This award has shown us that progress can be achieved through partnership," said Ogeli Makui, Nine varieties of irrigated rice were released in program coordinator. "A number of worthwhile 2006 and an additional three varieties in the first projects have been identified by the community -- quarter of 2007. for example, expanding herds of dairy goats in partnership with Heifer International, Kenya Wildlife "FLAR's regional approach is critical," Zorrilla Service, ILRI and the local community." added. "And the private sector's strong represen- tation helps ensure that technical solutions match What about the future? "The Kenya Wildlife Service the needs and demands of our farmers." has started contributing to the lease program, and about 3,000 acres [1,200 hectares] have been Sunn Pest Management, a 10-year collaboration added," Makui said. "The service is committed to between the University of Vermont and the Interna- funding the same acreage for the next 4 years. tional Center for Research in the Dry Areas aims to We're hopeful that we'll realize our goal of leasing improve crop production in impoverished regions of and conserving 60,000 acres in perpetuity." the Middle East. The sunn pest is a group of insects that inject saliva into wheat, breaking down its These award-winning collaborations show gluten and harming the baking quality of flour made that combining innovative partnerships with from it. It is prevalent throughout West Asia and in science-based solutions can bring measurable parts of Central Asia and North Africa. progress against pressing poverty, food security and environmental problems. CGIAR Centers and The partnership has brought policy change, Challenge Programs have active partnerships as Turkey, Syria and Iran have stopped aerial with nearly 1,000 CSOs, whose unique perspectives applications of pesticides to combat the sunn pest, and creative approaches are invaluable for applying instead insect-killing fungi as biological promoting agricultural growth, protecting the control and using novel screening methods to environment, and fostering human health identify resistance in wheat. and well-being. 20 2006 Annual Report SUPPORTED BY THE Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 21 Mamadama and Parul have never met, as Mamadama is from the West African country of Guinea and Parul from Bangladesh in South Asia. Yet Mamadama is learning from Parul simple innovations that are quietly transforming daily life in her village, providing an example of how local knowledge and innovations are spreading from one community to another, and from one region to another, through media and partnership with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). "Most of us assume that scientists are the sole source Seeing is believing as Mamadama Camara (center) from Touguikhoure of innovation in agriculture," says Dr. Paul Van village in Guinea reports what she learned from Asian farmers through the videos on rice seed health. Mele, technology transfer specialist at the Africa Rice Center (WARDA). "We forget that farmers "From the video, I learned to use neem leaves to innovate to capitalize on their day-to-day experience." control insects," Mamadama reports, adding that the Maria village practice of storing seeds in airtight Unfortunately, farmers' knowledge often remains containers echoes her grandparents' advice. "I will locked in individual families or communities, now store my maize and rice seed like them and if not completely lost, for lack of suitable mechanisms pass this knowledge on to my children." of dissemination. Video is proving to be a powerful tool for documenting and strengthening local A radio interview of Mamadama and her friends innovations and expanding their impact by facilitating on the videos aired on a local station twice A video program that allows women to share postharvest technologies across Bangladesh expands its reach to Africa their exchange. With the help of partners from weekly for 3 months, potentially reaching over national programs and NGOs in Africa, Van Mele 800,000 people. has begun introducing to African farmers videos on rice seed health produced in 2003 as part of WARDA, in partnership with the national program in a women-to-women agricultural extension project Benin and the international NGOs Sasakawa-Global in Bangladesh. 2000 and Centre Songhai, has recently produced videos of women processing rice to enhance "Although these videos were produced for knowledge of improved postharvest technologies. Bangladesh, we're testing their usefulness in Africa, because rice farmers in many developing Participatory learning and action research has found countries face similar challenges, such as access success in improving farmers' management skills to high-quality seed," Van Mele comments. despite its challenges. "Initial investment costs are "Through video, we can better explain innovations' high," Van Mele concedes, "because participatory underlying scientific principles." processes involve intensive interactions, interpersonal communication and negotiations. Modern media can WARDA's partners have translated the Bangladeshi re-enforce innovations by strengthening institutional videos into several African languages. In 2006, capacities while scaling-up participatory approaches they showed the videos to over 6,300 farmers in alongside scientific and local innovations." Gambia, Mali and Guinea. APEK Agriculture, a Guinean NGO, uses the videos in French, followed by discussions on community-based seed systems, to train farmers and technical staff of grassroots organizations. That is how Mamadama, in her Guinean village of Touguikhoure, was able to see with her own eyes how Parul and Africa Rice Center (WARDA) her neighbors in Maria village in Bangladesh store Headquarters: Cotonou, Benin rice seed and protect it from insects. www.warda.org 22 2006 Annual Report Farmers in Nepal's Pokhara Valley had reason to celebrate in 2006. The National Variety Approval, Release and Registration Committee of the National Seed Board of Nepal approved a new version of Jethodbudho, a local traditional rice variety, that had been improved through participatory plant breeding. Millers and merchants pay a premium of 25% for the new variety. "The release of Pokhareli Jethobudho is the result of a great collaboration involving farmers, A boy and his father present a sheaf of rice at a community seed-production site near Pame, a village in the Pokhara Valley of Nepal. NGOs, NARS, extension workers and the private sector," says Dr. Bhuwon Sthapit, one of the that these qualities made it an ideal candidate coordinators of the project, using the acronyms for participatory landrace enhancement. for nongovernmental organizations and national agricultural research systems. "The new variety With the support of Canada's International holds a lot of promise for improving the livelihoods Development Research Centre, the farmers of local farmers." worked with researchers from Bioversity, LI-BIRD and the Nepal Agricultural Research Council to As the approval and release of a variety developed improve the Jethobudho landrace. Farmers through participatory plant breeding raises the supplied 338 samples of locally grown Jethobudho, issue of farmers' rights, the project is developing which underwent 3 years of trials and selection for an appropriate legal framework that protects it and desirable traits. Six top-performing lines were Stakeholder awareness and advocacy of a balanced genetic resource policy prepares the ground for an improved traditional rice variety the rights of farmers as its custodians. The Genetic handed over to farmers for participatory varietal Resources Policy Initiative of Bioversity International1 selection. Close to 300 farmers from the Pokhara has been working closely with Nepali partners Valley compared the improved selections with their since 2002, raising the capacity of initiative own Jethobudho varieties. They greatly preferred partners to weigh diverse perspectives on genetic the best of the improved selections, which offered resource policy issues and needs. As a result, they 40% higher yields. became powerful local advocates for the legal change that permitted the registration of the To benefit as many farmers as possible, the project improved Jethobudho landrace. and the government agricultural extension office of Kaski District set up a seed-production system in "The release of Pokhareli Jethobudho has paved the community to ensure adequate seed supplies. the way for establishing intellectual property rights The project also works to link community seed for Nepal's farming communities," observes Pratap producers to markets. Shrestha, executive director of Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhareli Jethobudho could even interest export a local NGO. markets in the Middle East. "Jethobudho's small grain, soft texture, and excellent qualities of volume Deep in the Pokhara Valley, farmers from Begnas, expansion and aroma during cooking make it well Pame and surrounding villages in Kaski District suited to a number of dishes popularly consumed have been growing Jethobudho for generations. in the region," explains Sanjay Gyawali, a plant "Jethobudho rice is one of the varieties favored by breeder with LI-BIRD. consumers because of its soft texture and its unique aroma and flavor," explains Sthapit, adding 1 The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute and the International Bioversity International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain now operate under Headquarters: Rome, Italy the name Bioversity International. The name echoes a new strategy that focuses on improving people's lives through biodiversity research. www.ipgri.org Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 23 Small-scale farmers in Colombia are using low-cost in vitro propagation to multiply clean cassava seed and so control a disease that has devastated this staple crop and threatened their food security. Integrating into routine farm practice the use of fine tissue culture in glass containers further promises to spread the benefits of clean seed production to other cassava-growing areas and other clonally seeded crops. Biotechnology techniques are Frogskin is one of the most damaging cassava no longer confined diseases, affecting root growth and causing yield to laboratories. losses of over 90%. Present in most cassava-growing areas of Colombia since the 1980s, the disease has The plan is to incorporate other crops into this gradually spread through much of Latin America research scheme, taking advantage of existing and is now reported in Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, facilities and requiring only minimal investment. Panama, Peru and Venezuela. CBN has established experimental sites in Ecuador and Brazil, where similar practices are now being In 2002 and 2003, an interdisciplinary group used to propagate disease-free cassava. of researchers and technical staff led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT "As a farmer, I had never done laboratory work," by its Spanish acronym) set out to train small says Doris Castillo Campo, one of the farmers Researchers and cassava farmers collaborate in applying low-cost laboratory techniques in the field to produce seed free of frogskin producers in Santa Ana, a rural community in participating in the project. "I always thought that Colombia's Cauca Department, in laboratory this type of work was just for holders of doctorate practices using low-cost tools. The group -- which degrees. Now I feel like a scientist, too. This teams CIAT and the CIAT-led Cassava Biotechnology experience has given me self-confidence and Network (CBN) with Colombia's Foundation for made me feel that I'm doing important work to the Participatory and Sustainable Development help improve the living conditions of my neighbors. of Small Farmers, Colombian Corporation for That's a really nice feeling." Agricultural Research, and Foundation for Agricultural Research and Development -- "The project now aims to develop an in situ system subsequently oriented participating farmers in for protecting native cassava varieties that will the application of in vitro methodology to produce prevent the loss of agrobiodiversity while enhancing cassava plants free of this dread disease. food security," reports Escobar. "It will also allow a more objective comparison between local and The methodology was tested with six clones, improved varieties." producing 6,000 plants that were later certified free of frogskin by the Colombian Agriculture and Livestock Institute. Under the guidance of experts, the producer group further developed a rapid propagation system to increase the number of plants available for subsequent distribution to cassava producers. "We believe that the system can be replicated in other regions of Colombia and in other areas where International Center for there is a need to renew cassava planting materi- Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) als," says Dr. Roosevelt Escobar, CIAT principle Headquarters: Cali, Colombia researcher for the project. www.ciat.cgiar.org 24 2006 Annual Report play in the livelihoods of poor forest dwellers and how government regulations governing the transport of NTFPs in Brazil and many other countries hamper the trade. Hummel agreed, telling participants how Ver-o-Peso -- the open-air market on the banks of the Amazon in Belém with an array of fruits, fiber, nuts, roots and gums -- graphically illustrates the complexity of the NTFP trade and the impracticability of applying standardized regulations to control it. To support his argument A market graphically illustrates the complexity of regulating trade in non-timber forest products. in favor of liberalization, Hummel cited Beyond Timber: Certification of Non-timber Forest Products. One aim of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is to help inform and shape One month after the Brazilian meeting, IBAMA policymaking to benefit forests and those who announced that transport documents would depend on them for their livelihood. To this end, no longer be needed for ornamental, medicinal research findings must be made accessible to and aromatic bulbs, fibers or leaves of native policymakers, development agencies and national or planted species. Confirmation of CIFOR's agricultural research centers. In 2006, CIFOR influence came in a message from IBAMA's general scientists and their partners thereby helped coordinator of forestry resource management, convince the Brazilian government to rescind Dr. José Humberto Chaves. "Clearly, the experience Convincing policymakers to liberalize trade in non-timber forest products protects forests by enhancing the livelihood of their inhabitants regulations that hampered the sustainable trade in of CIFOR contributed significantly to the consensus non-timber forest products (NTFPs). of ideas surrounding this decision," he wrote. In recent years, CIFOR has produced a large body Lifting transport regulations will make a difference of work on NTFPs. The Non-timber Forest Product to many in the NTFP trade, be they collectors, Case Comparison Project, which involved over 60 growers or buyers. researchers from 27 countries, provided detailed analyses of the use, management and marketing of "I'm very gratified that we've been able to influence some 61 NTFPs around the world. The book Fruit policies on the transport of NTFPs," says Shanley. Trees and Useful Plants in the Lives of Amazonians, "But even more rewarding is the knowledge in which CIFOR scientists Dr. Patricia Shanley and that decision-makers now realize that reliable Dr. Gabriel Medina describe 30 Brazilian trees and information, based on sound science, is crucial palms whose fruits, nuts and fibers are used by to good policymaking." local people, has been widely used and praised by educators, policymakers and politicians. Shanley is also a coauthor of Beyond Timber: Certification of Non-timber Forest Products, which synthesizes the findings of nine case studies from Latin America, Africa and Asia. A common theme emerging from these studies is that overregulation and red tape seriously impede the trade in NTFPs. With this in mind, Dr. Antonio Carlos Hummel, director of national forests for IBAMA, Brazil's environmental protection agency, Center for International Forestry invited CIFOR scientists to a July 2006 meeting of Research (CIFOR) senior policymakers in Brasilia. Shanley and her Headquarters: Bogor, Indonesia colleagues highlighted the important role NTFPs www.cifor.cgiar.org Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 25 The people of the Saraguro have farmed these high, steep slopes of the Andes of southeast Ecuador for more than 500 years, isolated from the more prosperous parts of the country by high altitude and poor infrastructure. Difficult conditions have conspired to make a hard life, with food often running out before the next harvest. In 1995, improved agricultural technology started trickling into the Saraguro through a modest project that offered farmers new varieties of barley, one Barley yields in the Saraguro are now the second highest in South America. of their main food crops. The two new varieties, Shyri and Atahualpa, were developed by Ecuador's essential amino acids than regular maize. The National Institute of Agricultural and Livestock yields of potatoes and other crops have quadrupled. Research (INIAP by its Spanish acronym) using With increased productivity, farmers have shifted materials from the Barley Breeding Program their cereals to rainfed land, reserving irrigated for Latin America jointly led by the International land for more valuable crops. Some have built Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas greenhouses to grow tomatoes. and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT by its Spanish acronym). Farmers are now improving soil conservation on the The new varieties resisted diseases and had steep slopes by planting contour strips of perennial a potential yield much higher than what the grass. They have dug 74 small reservoirs and want farmers had been experiencing. to start producing their own seed. Improved barley cultivars started farmers in the high Saraguro of Ecuador up the road from persistent food deficits to profitable surpluses In the first season, only one farmer volunteered The 5,000-plus farmers of the Saraguro who have to try the new seeds. Jorge Coronel, an INIAP participated in the program since 1995 have agronomist, worked with him. Coronel had taken experienced a remarkable improvement in their an intensive breeding course at CIMMYT and lives and livelihoods. The role played by CIMMYT brought his knowledge to bear on the problem has been small. But, without the initial breeding, of breeding varieties of barley suitable for the there would have been no seed to improve farm conditions of the Saraguro. productivity. Without the training, national program scientists in Ecuador might not have been so The farmer's bumper harvest was enough to innovative. And without the partnership, nothing convince 13 others to try the new seed, which would have come together. Coronel offered, along with fertilizer, on credit. All repaid the loan in kind at harvest time. The project, a partnership of CIMMYT, INIAP and the farmers themselves, with financial support from Spain and Canada, has grown over the years. In each of its 17 villages, one lead farmer distributes seed and encourages others to try new crops and practices. The results have been spectacular. Barley yields in the Saraguro are now the second highest in South America. The farmers, no longer facing a hungry time, now produce surpluses to sell. With intensification, some grow two crops per year instead of one. International Maize and Wheat Using participatory varietal selection, the farmers Improvement Center (CIMMYT) have diversified into improved wheat and quality Headquarters: Mexico City, Mexico protein maize, which has higher levels of two www.cimmyt.org 26 2006 Annual Report A collaborative research project in rural Mozambique using orange-fleshed sweetpotato developed by the International Potato Center (CIP by its Spanish acronym) has shown conclusively that feeding young children sweetpotato rich in beta-carotene improved their intake of vitamin A and reduced the prevalence of low retinol in the blood, an indicator of vitamin A deficiency. The work was the first community feeding study in Africa to follow intervention and control households and children throughout the initial adoption period. Farmwomen learn how to prepare orange-fleshed sweetpotato juice, thereby adding value to their nutritious crop. Such studies are rare because they are expensive and complex to design. household members ate them and other locally "Building on pilot experience in western Kenya, this available foods rich in vitamin A, as well as sources project aimed to improve child-feeding practices of protein and fat. And it worked to develop and introduced a market-development component sustained markets for the new cultivars. to assure sustained adoption," reports Dr. Jan Low, a CIP researcher who worked closely with the "These three pathways interacted and reinforced project, Towards Sustainable Nutrition Improvement. one another," explains Low. A study finds that orange-fleshed sweetpotato raises vitamin A intake and improves the health status of children in Mozambique The study was led by Michigan State University After 2 years, children in intervention households and enjoyed the collaboration of CIP, Mozambique were consuming 8 times more vitamin A than those Ministry of Health Nutrition Division, World Vision in control households. Orange-fleshed sweetpotato Mozambique, Helen Keller International, National (OFSP) was the main source of that vitamin A. In an Institute for Agronomic Research (INIA by its environment with extremely poor health services Portuguese acronym), and Southern African Root and little formal education for mothers, the study Crops Research Network (which is backstopped attributed to the intervention a 15% decline in the by CIP and the International Institute of Tropical prevalence of low serum retinol in young children Agriculture). Providing financial support were the averaging 13 months old. The challenge remains to Micronutrient Initiative of Canada, Rockefeller sustain wide adoption and impact. Foundation, United States Agency for International Development, and HarvestPlus Challenge Program "If we can get OFSP into the young child's diet, (see page 41). The Southern Africa Root Crops it has an impact," observes Low. "We found that, Research Network (SARRNET)-INIA had released once a child reaches 1 year of age, the mother eight orange-fleshed sweetpotato varieties nationwide no longer prepares special porridges. So, in our in 2000, of which five proved well adapted to current scaling-out efforts with HarvestPlus conditions in central Mozambique. support, our focus is to increase the diversified use of OFSP in the general household diet so Vitamin A deficiency is a primary cause of blindness that children over 1 year of age eat OFSP when in young children in Africa. A key project objective their parents do." was to improve and maintain the intake of vitamin A and energy in children under 5. The project team adopted three approaches: It ensured the supply of orange-fleshed sweetpotato planting materials so that households could produce more energy and beta-carotene per hectare. It created demand International Potato Center (CIP) for vitamin A-rich foods by persuading people to Headquarters: Lima, Peru plant them and ensured that the most vulnerable www.cipotato.org Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 27 Many of the world's dry areas suffer acute and tightening water scarcity, limiting food production and worsening poverty and environmental degradation. Low-income agricultural countries are particularly at risk. Agriculture accounts for over 75% of total water use, but this share will fall as demand from industry and other sectors rises. Meanwhile, food production must increase to keep pace with population growth. The only solution is to use water more efficiently. The first step is to measure current water-use efficiency (WUE) in agriculture, which is difficult, particularly where water is scarce. As most Give plants the water they need, but no more. WUE studies in West Asia have considered only single crops, they have not reflected the complex factors. The new approach helps present the whole decisions farmers make. Research by the Interna- picture, integrating the various factors into a clear, tional Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry objective index. Areas (ICARDA) and its partners, in collaboration with the United Nations' Economic and Social At a UN-sponsored workshop on WUE in Commission for Western Asia, provides a new November 2005, ten West Asian NARS noted approach that better reflects actual conditions the urgent need to improve WUE in agriculture. on farms in dry areas. The new methodology has become an important A new approach to measuring water-use efficiency suits real conditions on the farm and is applicable across cropping systems component of regional efforts to assess water Traditionally, scientists have measured the use, highlighting the role of science in catalyzing quantity of a particular crop produced per unit of change. The work assists the targeting of research water, which is not useful for assessing multi-crop by providing a clearer understanding of the factors systems. Nor does it consider crop prices or water involved so that funding can be committed to areas costs, or allow data from different farming systems where water savings will be greatest. At the same to be easily compared. The new approach measures time, the knowledge gained can help policymakers on-farm WUE as the ratio of water volume required design better incentive packages to encourage to reach a production target to water volume farmers to adopt more efficient water-management actually used. This index allows comparisons methods, especially regarding irrigation. across cropping systems and can be used both to This promises to improve productivity, conserve identify low-WUE areas, or factors contributing to scarce water resources, and minimize salinization low WUE in an area, and to assess potential water and waterlogging. savings from improved WUE in a given system. In partnership with national agricultural research systems (NARS), the methodology was tested in six studies in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria. It proved to be a robust tool for evaluating WUE in different crops or areas. Ongoing studies in Sudan, Iran and Syria are assessing on-farm WUE and looking at what factors determine it. Cropping systems are more or less water efficient for complex reasons: the International Center for Agricultural availability of appropriate cultivars, knowledge of Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) improved irrigation methods, agricultural pricing Headquarters: Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic policies, water charges, and social and cultural www.icarda.org 28 2006 Annual Report Progress Milling, the largest miller in Limpopo Province of South Africa, established in 1997 the Limpopo Community Development Program (LCDP) to help coordinate public and private investment aiming to improve agricultural productivity and livelihoods in rural communities of the province. It coincided with the company's investment in rural community depots for the sale of maize and the exchange and purchase of farmers' grains. In 2003, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) joined LCDP and began conducting research, A small fertilizer pack is more affordable for small farmers and funded by the Australian Centre for International easier to handle. Agricultural Research, with the farmers' organization Limpopo Agricultural Strategic Team (LIMPAST) and the Limpopo Department depots rose from a 5-year plateau of 85 tons per of Agriculture. The partners tested low doses of cropping season to 100 tons in 2005-2006. fertilizer as an investment option for poor farmers Pannar Seeds reported an additional 20 tons in drought-prone regions. Fertilizer had been sold of seed sales in the province. in Progress Milling depots only in the traditional Marketing fertilizer in small packs makes inputs more accessible to small-scale farmers in South Africa and boosts total sales 50-kilogram (kg) pack. To complement the As if to ratify the success of this partnership, fertilizer research, Progress Milling, LIMPAST Progress Milling, Sasol, Pannar and LIMPAST and ICRISAT approached the chemicals firm are jointly funding the new position of develop- Sasol Nitro in 2004 with the proposal that it ment coordinator to supervise the sale and become a financial partner in LCDP and supply distribution of seed and fertilizer at Progress fertilizer for sale at Progress Milling depots. Milling depots and to support field research with ICRISAT proposed testing the sale of smaller smallholder farmers conducted by LIMPAST and 10- and 20-kg packs in addition to the traditional ICRISAT. Further, Sasol Nitro is providing a grant 50-kg pack, in line with the philosophy of providing to support the provincial agronomist's master's farmers the choice of buying small packs and as a degree based on evaluating small doses of more appropriate strategy for marketing fertilizer nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer for poor to poor farmers. farmers in drought-prone regions. Sasol Nitro proceeded to register 10- and 20-kg packs of starter and top-dress fertilizer, and in the 2005-2006 season supplied Progress Milling with the three pack sizes. The Sasol agronomist helped conduct demonstration trials with farmer groups. As a member of the LCDP, Pannar Seeds supported the marketing trial with small packs of maize and sorghum seed for sale at the depots. Results show that, in villages where farmers were familiar with fertilizer, sales of 50-kg bags dominated. However, in villages where fertilizer International Crops Research Institute for use was uncommon, 99% of sales were in small the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) packs, with 10-kg packs preferred to 20-kg Headquarters: Patancheru, India packs. Fertilizer sales through Progress Milling www.icrisat.org Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 29 The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals has placed hunger and poverty at the top of the global development agenda, with the target of cutting hunger in half by 2015. To further call attention to global hunger, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) marked World Food Day in October 2006 with the release of its Global Hunger Index (GHI), an innovative and enhanced approach for measuring hunger in developing and transitional countries. The index reveals hunger hotspots, shows which countries and regions have improved over time, and demonstrates The index shows which countries have not used available the links between hunger and violent conflict. resources to alleviate undernutrition. Designed to mobilize political will and promote development with questions about the country's good policies by ranking countries and illustrating hunger and child malnutrition problems. trends, the index captures three dimensions of hunger: insufficient availability of food, shortfalls in In Malawi, the ministers of agriculture and of child nutrition and child mortality. The index ranks economic planning and development granted countries in the years 1981, 1992, 1997 and 2003 press interviews regarding the country's poor GHI to measure their progress over time. The current ranking. The World Food Programme quoted the hotspots of hunger and undernutrition are in index in a statement decrying cutbacks in food aid The new Global Hunger Index helps civil society and parliamentarians evaluate progress in the fight against hunger -- and publicize failure South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, with some for children and sufferers of AIDS and tuberculosis other countries such as Cambodia also showing in Cambodia. alarmingly prevalent hunger. One benefit of the index is to indicate which The index was released in partnership with the countries have not used available economic nongovernmental organization German Agro resources effectively to alleviate undernutrition. Action, which held a press conference in Germany Several countries do worse than expected on the to complement an international press briefing index relative to their gross national income per organized by IFPRI. The press activities resulted capita. Countries with high HIV infection rates in more than 60 media hits in 17 developing and scored poorly relative to their level of economic 10 developed countries, ultimately influencing development, highlighting the links between AIDS governments and key decision-makers. The index and hunger. also empowered international agencies and civil society organizations, which use the data to focus By developing and publicizing the GHI, IFPRI's attention on severe hunger in particular countries. ultimate goal is to speed progress in the fight German Agro Action uses the index for its advocacy against hunger. Ultimately, merely cutting hunger in efforts in Germany and in developing countries half cannot provide satisfaction. Hunger must be where it run projects. eradicated completely. India's poor GHI ranking and lack of improvement from 1997 to 2003, despite favorable economic trends, stirred considerable debate in that country. Publicity about the GHI culminated in action by the Indian Parliament, which contacted IFPRI seeking International Food Policy Research more information about India's poor performance. Institute (IFPRI) Members of Parliament also confronted the Headquarters: Washington, D.C., minister of consumer affairs, food and public United States of America distribution and the minister of women and child www.ifpri.org 30 2006 Annual Report A British television documentary alleged in 2000 that 90% of the cocoa exported from Côte d'Ivoire was produced using child slaves. This and similar reports prompted the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) to conduct an investigative survey of cocoa producers in West Africa. The research was supported by the United States Agency for International Development, US Department of Labor, World Cocoa Foundation and International Labor Organization, as well as the governments of Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria. Sensitization conducted in cocoa farmer field schools lowers the rate of child labor. Although the study documented no instances of slavery, it did find hundreds of thousands of 15,000 cocoa farmers from 2003 to 2006 and are children at risk performing hazardous tasks on now in the farmer field school curriculum manual cocoa farms. To address this problem, chocolate for West African cocoa producers. manufacturers have supported a program designed to stem child labor. The outcome of sensitization was revealed by a study in Ghana that compared 350 cocoa Cocoa is grown mostly on small family farms in farmers trained in farmer field schools with 200 West Africa, where children have traditionally nonparticipating farmers. Among participants, worked in agriculture as part of the family unit. the incidence of child labor was 18% lower than A study of child labor conditions among cocoa producers in four West African countries guides action to stem abuses The study found that farm families provided all the in the control group. Encouraged by this result, labor on 31% of the cocoa farms in Côte d'Ivoire, STCP and national partners intend to scale up 23% in Cameroon, 17% in Ghana and 10% in farmer field schools over the next 5 years. Nigeria. In Côte d'Ivoire, 87% of permanent labor in cocoa farming came from the family, with children STCP also developed training modules on child providing 24% of household labor. labor for cocoa marketing cooperatives, which were tested with 127 organizations in Côte d'Ivoire. Some 200,000 children in Côte d'Ivoire, and In addition, on the basis of the study findings, a another 84,000 children in the three other countries, US$5 million child labor sensitization and remediation were found to be performing such hazardous tasks program was implemented across West Africa from as using machetes and applying pesticides without 2003 to 2006 by the West Africa Commercial protective equipment. Even more disturbingly, the Agriculture Program of the International Labor study reported that about 12,500 children working Organization, with the support of the World Cocoa on cocoa farms had no relatives in the area, which Foundation and the US Department of Labor. suggests that many of them had been trafficked. In Côte d'Ivoire, one-third of school-age children living on cocoa farms have never attended school. Children working in all cocoa farming tasks were found to be barely half as likely to be enrolled in school (34% enrolled) as children who did not work (64% enrolled). In response to these findings, the Sustainable Tree Crops Program (STCP) of IITA incorporated International Institute of Tropical child labor sensitization protocols in its farmer Agriculture (IITA) field school training curriculum for cocoa farmers. Headquarters: Ibadan, Nigeria These protocols were refined and tested with over www.iita.org Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 31 Veterinary service providers in Tanzania and Kenya are widely deploying a live vaccine proven to be safe and effective against East Coast fever. The deadly cattle disease destroys smallholder livelihoods and costs Africans up to US$300 million a year. The vaccine, produced by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) a decade ago, had been used until recently only in Tanzania because veterinary authorities in Kenya and elsewhere demanded evidence of its safety. Using live vaccine is an infection-and-treatment method of immunization. It involves injecting cattle with a dose of live but weakened parasites along with a long-acting antibiotic that keeps the disease from developing. Past attempts to promote this immunization method failed because there were Safely delivered live vaccine reduced calf mortality in the doubts that it could be delivered safely in the field herds of poor pastoralists to less than 2%. or that it would be affordable to poor livestock herders. Then a private vaccine supplier called As a result of this project, live vaccine demand VetAgro Tanzania began protecting Maasai has increased dramatically. VetAgro Tanzania has cattle against East Coast fever with the vaccine, requested 120,000 doses for 2007 and 240,000 Demonstrating its safety and affordability renders a live vaccine for East Coast fever available to thousands of African cattle herders demonstrating not only that the live vaccine doses in 2008. This and demand in Kenya and can be safely delivered under pastoral conditions, other countries in East Africa will deplete vaccine but also that a huge demand exists among poor stocks and require ILRI to produce more. pastoralists to purchase it. Demand was so strong, Private companies in Kenya and the Global in fact, that 4,000 Kenyan nomadic herders drove Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines are their cattle across the border to get their animals keen to commercialize the vaccine through a vaccinated in Tanzania. private-public partnership. Beginning in 2002, ILRI helped to gather The project reduced calf mortality among poor independent evidence on the use of the vaccine pastoralists to less than 2% and the cost of tick in Tanzania, which demonstrated that the vaccine control by 50-75% while increasing livestock sales was safe and effective, that herders wanted it, and prices. Pastoral households invested their and that it could be administered safely in the field. new income from livestock in their children's The safety and efficacy results from the studies led education and health, in improving their cattle to regulatory approval and widespread adoption breeds, and in accessing more and better in Tanzania. Noting the effective use of the method livestock health services. in Tanzania, Kenyan pastoralists lobbied their government to allow them to use it. In response, the Kenya Veterinary Department asked Veterinaires sans Frontiers Germany and the Loita Development Foundation to test the infection-and-treatment method using the ILRI methodology and, subsequently, approved its use in pastoral areas International Livestock Research of Kenya. The African Union InterAfrican Bureau Institute (ILRI) for Animal Resources is ensuring that the findings Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya; Addis from Kenya reach the rest of the region afflicted Ababa, Ethiopia by East Coast fever. www.ilri.org 32 2006 Annual Report Dr. Tran Thi Thu Ha covers a lot of ground. As program coordinator for a dynamic approach to nutrient management called site-specific nutrient management (SSNM), she organizes provincial and regional workshops and training for rice farmers, researchers, nongovernmental organizations and extension workers. Six-hour train rides and bumpy motorbike trips are routine as she meets with local authorities to explain the program and teach farmers how to apply and adapt the technology to their specific field conditions. "Being an SSNM program coordinator is rewarding Dr. Tran Thi Thu Ha, at far left, spreads the word about site-specific nutrient because farmers are very happy to benefit from management in central Vietnam. the program," explains Ha, a soil scientist who heads the Soil Science and Environment Department "I want to establish a network of farmers interested at the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry in in conserving soil fertility and protecting the central Vietnam. "It isn't easy to be a good coordi- agriculture environment by using balanced fertilizer nator, but Dr. Roland Buresh and Ms. Marianne application," says Ha. "This will help ensure Samson always support me with their help, which sustainable agricultural development in central is why I am able to do my duties well." Vietnam." Facilitating exchanges from farmer to farmer disseminates site-specific nutrient management to boost rice yields and farm income Buresh and Samson run the Irrigated Rice Research In 2007, the project will help farmers' clubs Consortium's Productivity and Sustainability Work augment improved nutrient and crop management Group at the International Rice Research Institute, with water-saving techniques. Farmer workshops which helped launch SSNM activities in central and meetings will aim to spread the technologies Vietnam in the first rice-cropping season of 2005. to neighboring villages, districts and provinces through farmer-to-farmer exchange. Ha began by introducing new farmer-implemented techniques in a farmers' cooperative in Huong Tra Optimal timing and rates of fertilizer application District of Thua Thien-Hue Province and by as practiced under SSNM bring large yield teaching farmers to diagnose their fields' particular increases over traditional farmers' practice. In nutrient deficiencies and fertilizer needs. Four more northern Vietnam, farmers practicing SSNM in cooperatives soon became interested and, in 2006, major rice-growing areas realized a net benefit of formed a club in which they share information US$150 per hectare per year. In southern India, on nutrient and crop management for rice. farmers who followed the recommended practices Some farmers have stopped using insecticide raised their annual income by $168, or 48%. In the and fungicide, as appropriate nutrient treatment Philippines, farmers got an extra $106 (10%) and, has reduced insect infestation and disease. in southern Vietnam, $34 (4%). Farmers from the club in Thua Thien-Hue traveled to the neighboring provinces of Quang Nam and Binh Dinh to share with other farmers and local leaders their experiences with improved nutrient and crop management, as well as with farmer- implemented experimentation and information International Rice Research sharing through clubs. Two clubs subsequently Institute (IRRI) formed in Quang Nam, and additional clubs are Headquarters: Los Baños, Philippines anticipated in Binh Dinh in 2007. www.irri.org Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 33 The 2006 Farmers' Day celebrations in Ghana, West Africa, honored -- for the first time in 22 years of Farmers' Day celebrations -- the country's best urban and peri-urban farmer. This resulted from long-term efforts under the coordination of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) to encourage official recognition of urban and peri-urban agriculture and its significance. IWMI's goal has been to contribute to urban poverty reduction, urban food security and improved urban environmental management by helping municipal authorities recognize the benefits of urban agriculture Urban agriculture creates opportunities for recycling urban while addressing its challenges. waste to fertilize soil. In and around West African cities, about 20 million Farmers' Day is a national holiday in Ghana, people currently work in urban and peri-urban celebrated on the first Friday in December, during agriculture (UPA), which includes producing, which the president honors Ghana's best farmers processing and marketing such foods as fruit, and fishers. It is a major motivational event for the vegetables, eggs, dairy products, meat and fish, entire agricultural sector, with prizes including as well as other agricultural products like ornamental houses and cars. Thanks to a concurrent effort, plants, seedlings and herbs. These activities provide UPA irrigated agriculture is now recognized in city livelihoods to poor communities and help sustain planning for Accra, the national capital, and A new Farmers' Day award helps focus attention on the benefits and challenges of urban and peri-urban agriculture in West Africa urban food supplies. Worldwide, 800 million accepted as a form of "informal irrigation" in the farmers are engaged in urban agriculture, meeting new national irrigation policy currently awaiting 15-20% of the world's food needs. However, urban cabinet approval. and peri-urban agriculture have been missing from urban planning in West Africa. IWMI's project partners include government departments for food and agriculture, urban IWMI has since 2001 been studying the benefits and planning, public health, and environment. risks of UPA. These results have been fed into the Other partners are nongovernmental and global network of Resource Centers on Urban community-based organizations, the Food and Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF), in which IWMI Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is responsible for work in India and Anglophone the World Health Organization, research and West Africa. Under the RUAF umbrella, IWMI started training institutes, farmer organizations, and in 2005 an approach in West Africa that brought development agencies. together many sectors and sought to integrate urban and peri-urban agriculture into the strategic plans of municipal authorities in Ghana, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. In the same year, IWMI co-organized a multi-stakeholder forum and policy seminar in Ghana with that country's Ministry of Food and Agriculture. A main discussion point was how to balance the benefits of UPA with such challenges as reducing health risks where polluted water is used for irrigation. The results included a declaration of political support for urban and peri-urban agriculture, International Water Management the release of a statement of consensus, and the Institute (IWMI) ministry's promise to institutionalize recognition of Headquarters: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka the country's best UPA farmer. www.iwmi.cgiar.org 34 2006 Annual Report The Landcare approach has enabled thousands of farm households in the Philippines to diversify livelihood options, strengthen local environmental governance, and improve their access to financial and technical assistance. Landcare develops the skills and capacities of rural communities to address land degradation and other concerns. It is a process of building partnerships among development agents, farmers and local governments so that they can identify and implement their own solutions to problems. The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) began in 1996 to scale up improved agroforestry and conservation farming technologies in the uplands Farmers too poor to plant hedgerows simply plowed around the marking sticks, of Mindanao. A decade later, more than 8,000 and terraces started to form within a year. farmers are active in more than 600 Landcare groups across Mindanao and the Visayas. surprisingly, training often determined which farmers actively adopted the new methods and In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the International which decided to wait and see. Rice Research Institute (IRRI) had promoted contour hedgerows in Clavaria, northern Mindanao. A multiyear project funded by the Spanish But most farmers could not afford the labor and Agency for International Cooperation allowed the Hillside hedgerows originally intended to control erosion are adapted to diversify farmers' income and foster community cohesion input costs of establishing them. A more labor- consolidation of knowledge and expanded support efficient technology was needed, and farmers are activities into other regions such as the Visayas. credited with identifying the concept of natural vegetation strips. In recent years, several ICRAF graduate fellowships have focused on adoption and impact surveys that "IRRI technicians gave sticks to the farmers, asking have deepened understanding of how Landcare them to place them on the contours ready for provides essential mobilizing capacity and incentives planting hedgerows," recalls Marcelino Patindol, a for testing and adapting new technologies. pioneer Landcare farmer in Clavaria. "Farmers unable to buy the planting materials just left the ICRAF, working closely with many institutions, has sticks in the ground and plowed around them. As helped bring a sea-change in the way thousands grass grew around the sticks, terraces started to of Philippine farmers manage their fields. It has form within a year." helped build a locally empowering institutional base, the Landcare Foundation, which will sustain Having begun a research program in the same research, extension and training efforts over time area in 1995 to document how well natural and promote policies that foster a transition vegetation strips control erosion and conserve soil, from the destructive plowing of steep slopes to ICRAF found that they provided an ideal niche for soil-conserving methods and diversified tree-based a variety of agroforestry options including banana farming systems. and durian trees and timber-bearing eucalyptus and gmelina trees. Importantly, farmers began taking up the techniques spontaneously, adapting them to agro-ecological situations. As the methods began to spread, demand quickly grew for training and material input support for establishing community and on-farm nurseries. ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) provided the research needed to identify appropriate Headquarters: Nairobi, Kenya tree species and other support functions. Not www.worldagroforestrycentre.org Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 35 The rivers that course though the rainforest of southern Cameroon hold the key to promoting small-scale enterprise able to break the cycle of poverty and environmental degradation. The WorldFish Center and its partners are developing and refining environmentally friendly techniques for farming ornamental fish and helping to establish village fishery-management entities empowered to ensure the fair valuation and protection of local forest aquatic resources. Most wild forest products are, like timber, prone As fishing is traditionally a women's activity, households to overexploitation. Commercially viable production headed by women stand to benefit the most. of the few forest products that are cultured typically requires clearing the forest. In contrast, aquaculture train fishers in aquaculture technology; establish systems that depend on natural nutrient cycles sustainable fishery-management entities in five mesh with the forest, as minimal modifications to villages home to more than 4,000 people; and streams expand the habitat conducive to natural improve scientific documentation of rainforest fish spawning and juvenile survival. This provides wild biodiversity, ecology and reproduction. For focus, brood stock that ensures the genetic integrity of the the project will conduct an expert workshop and cultured fish and shrimp and offers strong incentives produce a synthesis on rainforest river ecology for forest dwellers to conserve rivers and streams. and management. Ornamental fish culture provides a high-value livelihood option for vulnerable groups in the rainforests of sub-Saharan Africa More than 200 species of valuable ornamental fish Importantly, the project empowers forest communities live in the rivers of the Lower Guinean rainforest, to monitor and report on their forest aquatic though individuals of these colorful species are rare. resources, advocate and justify their fair valuation In recent years, the wasteful exploitation and callous and protection, and manage and market them shipping of ornamental fish -- almost entirely for the responsibly and sustainably. profit of foreign middlemen -- has seen 85% of the fish perish before reaching overseas markets. WorldFish's main partners in the project are the This project has helped establish a public-private Organization for Environment and Sustainable partnership to enter and help reform the international Development, a Cameroonian civil society trade in ornamental fish. organization dedicated to sustainable development, and Gulf Aquatics, a small Cameroonian trading Farming ornamental fish has the potential to company that has already reduced fish mortality in provide innovative and sustainable livelihood shipments to Europe. At the heart of the partnership options for 8 million residents of riverine ecosystems are the village fishery groups that are fully engaged in the Lower Guinean rainforest of Cameroon, in every step of developing a market chain that providing alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture stretches from their ponds and rivers to the and illegal logging. Success here could serve aquariums of the West. as a model for 20 million people in the neighboring Central African rainforest, who face similar challenges and opportunities. As fishing is traditionally a women's activity, the women and children of the most vulnerable households, especially those headed by women, stand to benefit the most. The immediate plan is to expand and strengthen WorldFish Center the work on ornamental fish aquaculture along Headquarters: Penang, Malaysia three forest rivers in south-central Cameroon; www.worldfishcenter.org 36 2006 Annual Report THROUGH Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 37 The ceremony presenting the Science Awards of both celebrate and augment the motivation that the CGIAR at its Annual General Meeting is a drives agricultural research scientists in both the welcome opportunity for the System to recognize laboratory and the field. The following are the excellence and achievements in agricultural winners of the 2006 CGIAR Science Awards: science and science communication. The awards The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT by its Spanish acronym) received the prestigious CGIAR King Baudouin Award for its research on stress-tolerant maize for food security, livelihoods and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa. CIMMYT took the lead in abiotic stress research by using managed stress environments, formulating applied and practical breeding approaches, and demonstrating significant breeding progress under highly variable random stress conditions in one of the largest plant breeding experiments ever undertaken in Africa. The approach is a low-cost methodology appropriate for national agricultural research systems in the developing world. Through CIMMYT's African Maize Stress Project and South African Drought and Low Soil Fertility Project, 44 stress-tolerant hybrids and 29 open-pollinated varieties of maize are benefiting thousands of farmers in eastern, central and southern Africa. Achievements are honored in improving and protecting maize, pearl millet, sorghum, banana and cowpea; compiling genebanks and virtual libraries; sequencing a cattle pathogen; and promoting a healthy diet Dr. Ram P. Thakur, an Indian national and a Dr. Thomas Dubois, a Belgian scientist at the Dr. Bir Bahadur Singh, an Indian national and senior plant pathologist at the International International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, plant breeder at the International Institute of Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid was the recipient of the Promising Young Tropical Agriculture from 1979 to April 2006, Tropics, won the Outstanding Scientist award Scientist award for his work on the biological was the Outstanding Senior Scientist for his significant contributions to managing protection of bananas from pests and diseases. awardee for his research in cowpea that led to disease in pearl millet and sorghum, two Dubois has developed tissue culture banana the development of several improved varieties, important cereal crops in the semi-arid tropics plants that are protected by beneficial strains sustainable cropping systems and participa- of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. His of fungal endophytes. He excels at delivering tory approaches that contributed to enhanced most outstanding contribution in recent years this product to the farmers, partly by food security, family nutrition and income for has come through a project with the Indian establishing public-private partnerships, as farmers in the tropics. His major contributions Council for Agricultural Research in which he well as by maintaining a high standard of have been early maturing cowpea varieties for successfully monitored the change in virulence scientific excellence. Banana is a key staple in the tropics and pyramiding genes for of a pathogen population. His work helped Uganda, where Dubois is posted, and other resistance to over 10 diseases, as well as breeders to develop pearl millet hybrids with countries in East and Central Africa. tolerance to drought and heat. Key to this durable resistance to downy mildew, an success has been his skill in team building and extremely destructive disease. This strategic forging effective partnerships among research has aided in avoiding epidemics and scientists from different research institutions. so prevented huge economic losses. 38 2006 Annual Report CGIAR Centers that Manage Genebanks The CGIAR Genebank Community won the Outstanding Partnership award for its effective stewardship of genetic resources, which are public goods central to the work of the CGIAR and its partners. The genebanks are repositories of over 600,000 accessions of some 3,000 staple crop, forage and agroforestry species essential to human food security and nutrition. Jane Toll, coordinator of the Systemwide Genetic Resources Program (SGRP) at Bioversity International, received the award on behalf of the community, which includes the genebanks of 11 CGIAR Centers as well as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Food Policy Research Institute, and SGRP (see page 15). The CGIAR Virtual Library Team received the The Outstanding Scientific Article was Patrick M. Maundu of the African Leafy Outstanding Scientific Support Team award awarded to Genome Sequence of Theileria Vegetable Project was the winner of the for launching and supporting the CGIAR Virtual parva, a Bovine Pathogen that Transforms Outstanding Communication award. Library. By bringing together CGIAR and Lymphocytes, by Malcom J. Gardner et al. The winning piece was in support of the external resources in one place, the library has Published in 2005 in the journal Science, this campaign to increase the consumption of significantly facilitated researchers' access to contribution from The Institute of Genomic nutritious African leafy vegetables for better knowledge and is therefore greatly contributing Research (TIGR), International Livestock nutrition. The project is coordinated by to the strengthening of agricultural research Research Institute (ILRI) and five partner Bioversity International and implemented capacity. The Virtual Library is part of the institutions represents a significant advance in in partnership with public and private CGIAR's Information and Communication understanding the biology of the parasite organizations in Kenya. As a result of the Technologies­Knowledge Management critical to the development of a vaccine against project's communication initiatives, sales of Investment Plan, which is supported by the the East Coast fever, a disease that kills 1 leafy vegetables increased 11-fold in 2 years. World Bank. Luz Marina Alvaré, the CGIAR million cattle each year in sub-Saharan Africa. Ruth Raymond, head of the Public Awareness Virtual Library Team leader and head of library Given the pathogen's close kinship with the Unit of Bioversity International, received the and knowledge management for the malaria parasite, the research work could also award on behalf of Maundu. International Food Policy Research Institute, provide a valuable contribution to the global received the award on behalf of the team. program to develop a vaccine against malaria. Vish Nene of TIGR and John McDermott of ILRI received the award on behalf of the authors. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 39 One project to improve peanut and another to understand aluminum tolerance illustrate Brazilian strength in genomic research collaboration The Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) brings partners together in a network for research Dr. Abraham Blum (right), curator of Plantstress.com, tours a sorghum trial with Dr. Frederico Durães, the plant physiologist managing an and capacity building in crop science. The network Embrapa-led Generation project supporting the emergence of draws on plant genetic diversity, advanced phenotyping centers of excellence for drought tolerance. genomic science and comparative biology to develop tools and technologies that enable plant breeders in the developing world to produce better One such project is "Unlocking the genetic crop varieties for poor farmers. diversity in peanut's wild relatives with genomic and genetic tools," whose tightly focused research The GCP links upstream basic research with agenda is executed by a world-class scientific downstream applied science by positioning itself team led by scientists from Brazil working with midstream, thus ensuring that innovations flow colleagues from Argentina, Denmark, France, freely to serve plant breeding for poor farmers. India and Senegal. New genes have been introduced This objective can be achieved only through into peanut cultivars and, in 2006, were tested to collaboration in plant science that is multinational, isolate the sources of the ability to withstand all multisectoral and multidisciplinary. manner of stresses. New lines that resist leaf rust have been identified. The 22 current members of the consortium include nine Centers supported by the CGIAR, seven Embrapa scientists are active in revealing the national research institutions and six advanced genetic basis of aluminum tolerance in various research institutions. The consortium members' crops, which will boost their productivity in acid additional partners include more than 25 advanced soils. By running an analysis that integrates research institutions in the North and South and 30 functional genomics, molecular genetics and national research institutions. Some of the GCP's physiology, a project teaming Embrapa with key partners are its stakeholders, who help identify Cornell University has identified a major gene for research priorities and so ensure that the products aluminum tolerance in sorghum. To follow up, the resulting from research projects truly serve users. GCP supports an Embrapa-led project to identify superior alleles of the aluminum-tolerance gene One of the GCP's most fruitful collaborations for breeding programs. The project will improve is with the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation germplasm for South America and Africa. (Embrapa by its Portuguese acronym). Embrapa coordinates Brazil's National Genetic Resources The GCP uses crop diversity and promotes Network, which provides an integrated system of biotechnology for breeding, as illustrated by the curatorship for 235 genebanks that together hold projects mentioned above. It nurtures broad-based more than a quarter of a million accessions of partnerships to harness cutting-edge science plant and animal germplasm. Embrapa leads or within and beyond the CGIAR to produce improved otherwise participates in several GCP projects germplasm for breeding cultivars for small-scale that highlight the GCP's goal of accessing genetic farmers. To achieve its objectives, the GCP relies diversity and using cutting-edge science to create on highly efficient partnerships such as that useful breeding tools. with Embrapa. 40 2006 Annual Report Foods rich in beta-carotene find favor where they are needed, as plant breeders join forces with health and marketing experts The Eat Orange! campaign promotes vitamin A-rich orange-fleshed sweetpotatoes. In many developing countries, public health varieties of orange-fleshed sweetpotato (OFSP) nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play a that are rich in beta-carotene, which the body crucial role in improving the health of the poor. converts into vitamin A. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, NGOs provide more than 20% of healthcare services to As these new varieties are developed by CIP and its the poor, especially to households and local national agricultural research partners, World Vision communities. Given their effectiveness in reaching ensures that systems of agricultural extension, underserved populations with interventions that are product marketing and demand creation are in driven by health concerns, public health NGOs and place to get these new varieties into the communities similar civil society organizations are critical most in need of them. World Vision has experience partners to HarvestPlus in fulfilling its mission to working in Mozambique since 1984, when it reduce micronutrient malnutrition among the poor. provided relief from drought and famine in a grinding civil war. Since that conflict ended, The process begins with the development of new World Vision has deepened its commitment to varieties of staple food crops biofortified to be rich Mozambique by implementing projects that focus in micronutrients that the human body can readily on health and nutrition, among other needs, and metabolize. Actually reducing micronutrient partnering with local and international NGOs to malnutrition requires the Challenge Program not improve food security. only to support the development of these new varieties but also to convince farmers to grow them, HKI, an NGO known for its work on vitamin A and poor households and communities to consume nutrition and blindness prevention, works with them. HarvestPlus has teamed up with national and World Vision to test specific health-communication international NGOs working in public health in strategies to generate community demand for Uganda and Mozambique to create demand in OFSP in target regions. HKI applies proven households and communities for nutritious health-delivery models, honed while disseminating biofortified staple crops. other nutrition interventions, to the new biofortified crops developed by HarvestPlus. Such techniques One such partnership is Eat Orange!, a strategic have been especially effective in countries with alliance combining HarvestPlus, International highly constrained healthcare infrastructure such Potato Center (CIP by its Spanish acronym, see as Mozambique. In other regions, HKI is scaling-up page 27), World Vision and Helen Keller International OFSP production, dissemination and consumer (HKI) in an effort to reduce vitamin A deficiency in education to promote OFSP in targeted communities. Mozambique, where the health of 68% of children For these efforts, HKI received one of four is thought to be affected, the worst cases leading $30,000 partnership awards at the third Innovation to blindness and even death. The partnership Marketplace of the CGIAR in 2006 (see page 19). promotes the cultivation and consumption of new Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 41 The Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) CPWF small-grant projects have proved excellent is a multi-institutional research-for-development at effectively linking researchers to examples of initiative that seeks to develop technological, genuine impact. The 14 projects aim to identify institutional and managerial innovations in the field existing small-scale or local water and/or agricul- of water and agriculture, and so expand and tural management strategies that have potential to reinforce food security, improve livelihoods and improve water productivity at some wider scale. leave more water for other users and environmental Relationships built among research networks, conservation. NGOs and local communities share knowledge and build capacity for future change. Small-grant To accomplish its tasks, the CPWF weaves an project representatives participated in several intricate partnership network. Each of its five prominent events during 2006, including the Civil themes is led by a research Center supported by Society-CGIAR Forum at the CGIAR Annual the CGIAR. Meanwhile, activities in each of its nine General Meeting 2006. benchmark river basins are coordinated by a basin- based institution. Moreover, projects are required A revised strategy for CPWF capacity building was to forge multiple partnerships with agencies within approved in April 2006. The new strategy was field- the target basins to qualify for CPWF funding. This tested through workshops on stakeholder needs emphasis on partnerships is the principal means by assessment held in the Limpopo, Volta and Nile which the CPWF strives to translate its research river basins in the later half of 2006. Throughout the findings into significant developmental impact. An year, the CPWF capacity-building initiative sup- impressive total of 198 institutions participated ported the research of 163 students from 24 directly in CPWF's 52 projects in 2006, augmented countries -- numbers set to expand in 2007. by uncounted indirect partnerships. The CPWF International Forum on Water and Food Feedback on 33 first-call projects indicates that took place in November 2006 with 245 participants innovative partnership networks combining from 32 countries coming together to build research and development institutions; national, partnerships and exchange ideas. The forum was provincial and local governments; nongovernmental hailed as an enormously successful experiment, organizations (NGOs); and farmers are changing designed to move away from standard presentation the ways in which research is carried out, as well formats by presenting knowledge before the event as strengthening research results and fostering and then debating and synthesizing it. Participants' positive change at the basin level. Research commented on the extraordinary energy of the achievements arising from networks are most week and described it as a model for future notable in projects on coastal resource manage- interactions. It resulted in an impressive array of ment, groundwater governance, collective action outputs, including the Vientiane Statement, a across scales in upper watersheds, and integrating declaration of vision and strategy on how to governance and modeling. improve water and food security. Crosscutting networks have improved coastal resource and groundwater management and boosted collective action in upper watersheds Flooded rice and other irrigated agriculture account for 70-90% of water use in developing countries. 42 2006 Annual Report Making headway in African agriculture requires an adaptable program of stakeholder collaboration, responsiveness and business unusual The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme Mozambique attracted farmers, nongovernmental Farmers, researchers and other stakeholders participate (SSA-CP) aims to demonstrate the potential of organizations, researchers, extension officers and in an SSA-CP diagnostic and integrated agricultural research for development representatives of a private agricultural marketing planning meeting. (IAR4D) to address the complex constraints that company. The initial proposal was to promote affect African agriculture. farmer production and marketing of indigenous vegetables, but farmers voiced a preference for IAR4D builds on four components: (i) interventions commercial vegetable production for urban that address the interfaces among productivity markets. The private company at the meeting enhancement, sustainable natural resource responded with a proposal for vegetable outgrower management, efficient markets, and policies arrangements to provide farmers in the region with and institutions; (ii) working from a value-chain agricultural inputs and an assured market. perspective; (iii) taking a watershed or agro- ecosystems approach; and (iv) working through This approach has potential if several constraints innovation platforms. can be addressed. These include the provision of irrigation infrastructure and water management, Each of these components involves collaboration, high-quality seed and other inputs, and adequate often with partners who have heretofore been feeder roads and vehicles. The fragmentation of largely absent, such as input suppliers, farmers' local markets must be addressed, and market groups, market agents and policymakers. information improved and expanded. Finally, the need exists for fast-tracking the registration Partnerships operate in different ways in the three of farmer organizations and farmer training, SSA-CP pilot learning sites, in West-Central, East particularly concerning quality standards, the and Southern Africa. In some cases, partnerships processing of agricultural produce and other are forged across the value chain to ensure that value-adding activities. production matches market demands. Elsewhere, stakeholders who share a watershed or agro- Because a cross-section of stakeholders attended ecological zone come together to agree on how to the planning meeting, the group could quickly address issues of natural resource management. identify priority problems and the collaborative A cross-cutting goal is to empower end users to arrangements required to address them. As revised drive the research agenda and ensure that research by a participatory process, the work plan will cover is relevant and translates into impact. To achieve not only varietal trials but also soil and water this goal, the SSA-CP invests in capacity building management, market and policy issues, and for all partners and envisions working toward postharvest processing, as well as capacity organizational change and institution building in building, organizational and institutional change, African national agricultural research systems to and participatory monitoring and evaluation. ensure that they are able to respond to stakeholder Partnerships forged at this stage form the basis needs with business unusual. for collaborative action in the next. A recent event in the Zimbabwe-Mozambique- In short, the SSA-CP's emphasis on stakeholder Malawi Pilot Learning Site illustrates how innovative collaboration is helping to ensure that IAR4D partnerships are reshaping the research agenda. A is responsive both to farmers' needs and to participatory planning meeting in Barue District of market conditions. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 43 IFPRI Bioversity ICARDA CIMMYT ICRISAT IRRI IITA IWMI WorldFish CIAT Africa Rice World Agroforestry ILRI CIFOR CIP Placement markers are approximate and indicate city locations. Centers Members Regional Offices CGIAR-SUPPORTED CENTERS Africa Rice Center (WARDA) www.warda.org International Center for Agricultural International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) www.irri.org Bioversity International www.icarda.org www.bioversityinternational.org International Water Management Institute International Crops Research Institute for (IWMI) International Center for Tropical the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) www.iwmi.cgiar.org Agriculture (CIAT) www.icrisat.org www.ciat.cgiar.org World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) International Food Policy Research www.worldagroforestrycentre.org Center for International Forestry Research Institute (IFPRI) (CIFOR) www.ifpri.org WorldFish Center www.cifor.cgiar.org www.worldfishcenter.org International Institute of Tropical International Maize and Wheat Agriculture (IITA) Improvement Center (CIMMYT) www.iita.org www.cimmyt.org International Livestock Research Institute International Potato Center (CIP) (ILRI) www.cipotato.org www.ilri.org 44 2006 Annual Report The Performance Measurement System of the CGIAR E L Performance Measurement Indicators entered its third year in 2006. Centers are measured B 1 in terms of their results and potential to perform in TA the future -- and now by their performance as POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDER perceived by stakeholders, including both CGIAR RESULTS TO PERFORM PERCEPTIONS Members and Center partners (table 1). Research Outcomes. Centers reported their five Outputs Quality and Relevance (surveyed every 3 years) of Current Research most significant research outcomes in 2006 in terms Outcomes of Center outputs generated in 2003-2005 and their Impacts Institutional Health external use and adoption by, or influence on, partners, Financial Health stakeholders and clients. The Science Council assessed and scored Center-reported outcomes (figure 1). Some of the outcomes are highlighted in chapters of this report on individual Centers. Culture of Impact Assessment. Centers' commit- E R Science Council Assessment of Outcomes ment to documenting their impact and building an 1 impact-assessment culture is measured as part of (0 = lowest, 10 = highest) FIGU the Performance Measurement System. The Science Council assessed Centers' reports using three 10 10 10 10 criteria: (i) ex-post impact assessment studies and 9 9 the advancement of methods for conducting them, 7 8 7 8 7 7 7 7 8 (ii) building an impact-assessment culture at the 6 Center, and (iii) communication and dissemination 6 and capacity enhancement. Figure 2 shows the 4 results of the Science Council assessment. 2 2 Institutional Health is assessed by measures of Center governance, culture of learning and change, 0 T R T T y and diversity. The following provides some insight Rice ty CIA CIP IITA ILRI IRRI CIFO IFPRI IWMI on each of the three components. Africa ICARDA ICRISA Bioversi CIMMY oforestrWorldFish Agr Good governance is a critical component of Center World performance. It entails (i) adequate composition and structure of Center boards, (ii) effective board practices, (iii) full board engagement with Center's strategic Commitment to Documenting Impacts and E business, and (iii) transparency and accountability. R Building an Impact-Assessment Culture 2 (0 = lowest, 10 = highest) The following demonstrates some of the critical FIGU good governance practices at Centers: 10 Fourteen Centers have in place a board-approved investment policy, 7.9 8 7.7 7.4 7.3 and 13 Centers have a grievance policy. 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.0 5.9 All Centers have a formal code of conduct and/or 6 ethical principles (including conflict-of-interest 5.5 4.7 4.9 rules) for staff, managers and board members. 4 3.8 The majority of the boards discussed or reviewed the Center's human resource policies during 2005-2006 and received or reviewed Center 2 staffing numbers and trends including consultant, gender and diversity information. 0 y All Center boards conduct annual self-assessments. e T T Ric CIP IITA ILRI CIA MYT IRRI IWMI CIFORCIM IFPRI ICARDA ICRISA WorldFish Africa Bioversity The Centers' culture of learning and change is critical Agroforestr to continued research excellence. This includes, World Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 45 among other factors, regular staff surveys; efficiency of operations (indirect cost ratio) and encouraging staff development and offering (iv) cash management on restricted operations.1 leadership-development programs for current and Figure 3 shows the results for the four indicators. prospective staff in managerial positions; regular external reviews of the research program and Stakeholder Perceptions. In 2006, the CGIAR Center management and governance, including commissioned GlobeScan Inc., a global public effective follow up; and engagement in new opinion and stakeholder research firm, to study the partnerships. perceptions of its key stakeholder groups (CGIAR Members and Center partners) for the purposes of The following illustrates some of the efforts that (i) providing information that is useful and relevant Centers make as learning organizations striving to both the CGIAR and each of the 15 Centers, (ii) for excellence: providing input to the CGIAR's performance measure- A majority of Centers conduct staff satisfaction ment process, and (iii) guiding the development and surveys every other year. refinement of stakeholder communication programs. In 2006, all Centers together engaged in over 300 new and substantive partnerships with Respondents who completed the survey numbered external partners, including national agricultural 348 and represented a stratified random sample of research institutes and civil society organizations. CGIAR stakeholders. The survey results show that Two-thirds of Centers have in place mentoring the CGIAR overall has a generally positive reputation programs for young scientists. among stakeholders. Most CGIAR Members and partners agree that the CGIAR "does an excellent Leveraging rich staff diversity is vital for the job advancing sustainable agricultural development CGIAR's research and management excellence. through research," as shown in figure 3. The performance indicators for research Centers continue to be refined The Performance Management System therefore tracks measures of diversity in terms of the nationality While conducting quality research is by far the of internationally recruited staff (IRS) and gender most important driver of the CGIAR's overall (table 2). reputation, the survey identified additional areas that both determine the CGIAR's reputation and Financial Health is measured in terms of (i) are opportunities for improvement (figure 4). Areas short-term solvency (liquidity), (ii) long-term of concern include perceived "efficiency" and "fair financial stability (adequacy of reserves), (iii) and clear decision-making." A quadrant analysis of drivers of perceived Diversity Measures in the CGIAR Performance performance was conducted for each Center. The E Measurement System in 2006 L results show that research is a key strength for all B 2 Centers and that areas that influence perceptions TA and require further focus are (i) partnership, (ii) % OF MANAGEMENT % OF IRS OF THE POSITIONS OCCUPIED MOST PREVALENT MOST PREVALENT communication, (iii) transparency about internal CENTER BY WOMEN NATIONALITY NATIONALITY processes, decision-making and demonstration Africa Rice 27 Japan 12 of accountability, and (iv) human resource Bioversity 22 United Kingdom 13 management. Figure 5 indicates into which quadrant each attribute falls for each Center. CIAT 50 USA 16 CIFOR 14 USA 20 Partnership is fundamental to the structure of the CIMMYT 18 USA 11 CGIAR network and the way it conducts business. CIP 43 Peru 17 Stakeholder perceptions suggest that this element ICARDA 0 Syria 13 requires strategic attention. Further, given the ICRISAT 8 India 31 increasing importance of transparency in stakeholder relations in all sectors, and the ongoing need to IFPRI 31 USA 30 demonstrate value for investment, the CGIAR IITA 22 Nigeria 20 has opportunities to improve its reputation among ILRI 40 United Kingdom 17 stakeholders. The influence mapping activity IRRI 7 USA 14 within the survey reveals that civil society IWMI 50 India 19 organizations are among the most influential W. Agroforestry 50 USA 18 entities in determining the CGIAR's reputation. WorldFish 33 Australia 19 1Short-term solvency (liquidity) is defined as current assets plus long-term investment minus current liabilities divided by per-day operating expenses excluding depreciation. Long-term financial stability is defined as unrestricted net assets less net fixed assets divided by per-day operating expenses. Efficiency of operations is defined as indirect costs divided by direct costs and expressed as a percentage. Cash management on restricted operations is defined as restricted accounts receivable divided by restricted accounts payable. 46 2006 Annual Report E Financial Health L B 3 TA Liquidity1 Adequacy of reserves Indirect cost Cash management on target: 90-120 days target: 75-90 days ratio restricted operations2 Africa Rice 102 102 28 2.03 Bioversity Int'l 104 67 18 0.61 CIAT 36 18 20 0.35 CIFOR 193 150 21 0.62 CIMMYT 94 80 25 0.38 CIP 96 89 13 0.13 ICARDA 167 118 16 0.46 ICRISAT 171 114 23 0.27 IFPRI 96 81 15 0.53 IITA 159 159 20 0.22 ILRI 194 159 22 0.34 IRRI 388 388 21 0.52 IWMI 100 64 21 0.31 World Agroforestry 140 82 22 1.10 WorldFish 204 194 21 0.45 CGIAR Average 149 124 20 0.46 1 2004 and 2005 restated to exclude investment in nonmarketable government of India bonds held by ICRISAT. 2 2004 and 2005 restated to reflect refinement of formula (accounts receivables stated net of allowance for doubtful accounts). ÆÒThe CGIAR does an excellent job advancing Drivers of the Perceived Performance E E R sustainable agriculture through researchÓ1 R of CGIAR in Advancing Sustainable Agriculture 3 4 FIGU FIGU Focus Key strengths Agree Neither agree Disagree (5+6+7) nor disagree (4) (1+2+3) Efficacy of research Total 54 20 12 Responsiveness Efficiency Serving regional needs importance Members 61 14 9 Serving Accountability local needs Consideration Serving of stakeholder needs global needs Transparency Partners 52 21 13 Derived Fair and clear decision-making 1Respondents were asked to rate the accuracy of the statement from 1 (least) to 7 (most); Opportunities Maintain white space indicates "don't know" or "not applicable." Source: The CGIAR's 2006 Stakeholder Perception Survey, GlobeScan Inc. Performance Source: The CGIAR's 2006 Stakeholder Perception Survey, GlobeScan Inc. E R 5 Summary of Quadrant Analysis FIGU eciR acirfA yisrevoiB TAIC ROFIC TYM M IC PIC ADRACI FARCI TASIRCI IRPFI ATI IRLI IRRI IM W hsiFdlroW I Research Key strengths Partnership Maintain Opportunities Communication Focus Transparency Regional Focus Human Resources Originality Diversity Source: The CGIAR's 2006 Stakeholder Perception Survey, GlobeScan Inc. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 47 The Executive Council (ExCo) of the CGIAR endorsed strengthening the CGIAR's engagement of civil society and, more broadly, helped steer the System's reform program. CGIAR System Priorities: ExCo monitored the imple- mentation of the CGIAR-approved System Priorities by establishing an ad hoc committee on funding them. Following ExCo's recommendation to reopen the Challenge Program process, a call for new Challenge Program concept notes was issued in late 2006. The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program was approved for a 3-year post-inception phase. Monitoring and Evaluation: ExCo made recommen- dations stemming from external program and management reviews of the Center for International Forestry Research, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, World Agroforestry Centre and WorldFish Center, which were endorsed by the CGIAR. It reviewed the CGIAR Performance Measurement System results for 2005 including a stakeholders' perception survey. ExCo's recommendations on the results of the stripe review on corporate governance of CGIAR Centers were approved, and the CGIAR and has asked the CGIAR Secretariat to work with has asked the Centers to report back to ExCo Centers on benchmarks for financial reserves and on the implementation of the recommendations. liquidity requirements. Programmatic and Structural/Organizational ExCo recommended, and the CGIAR approved, Alignment: ExCo continues to monitor and facilitate reducing the number of CGIAR Center seats on Contributions in 2006 address engaging civil society, as well as guiding and overseeing System priorities and numerous activities including alignment programmatic and organizational alignment in ExCo from two to one, to reflect the formation of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond. Building on the Alliance of CGIAR Centers and the Centers' recommendations made by two task forces decision to speak with a collective, unified voice. on alignment needs and options, ExCo made recommendations, later approved by the CGIAR, Reflecting Members' appreciation of ExCo on alignment activities, including that work contributions in 2006, over 80% of them agreed proceed at a faster pace. or strongly agreed that "decision-making by the CGIAR at AGM06 was facilitated by ExCo's Finance and Governance: ExCo reviewed guidance and recommendations." financial results for 2005 and program and budget plans for 2007, receiving CGIAR approval of its recommendations. ExCo continues to monitor financial risk at Centers and for the whole System 48 2006 Annual Report While finding better ways for components of the System to operate efficiently and effectively, the System Office also reaches out to stakeholders The System Office the CGIAR consists of the main 50 current CSO-CGIAR partnerships. These central service units of the CGIAR System, whose partnerships were showcased in a 3-day Innovation activities it integrates. It continuously strives to Marketplace. The System Office, particularly the foster partnerships within the System and with CGIAR Secretariat, Science Council Secretariat, external partners, while further improving its ways and Information and Communication Technologies of serving the CGIAR System as a whole. and Knowledge Management (ICT-KM) Program, worked closely together to make this stakeholder The past year saw the launch of a number of meeting a success. In the lead-up to the partnership initiatives, all aiming to advance the forum, an online discussion -- the CSO-CGIAR way the System does business and to strengthen virtual conversation -- took place, facilitated collaboration. The full 2006 System Office Annual by knowledge-sharing staff from the ICT-KM Report can be found at www.cgiar.org/soar/2006/ Program. Its main purpose was to let prospective index.html. participants get to know one another better and learn about a wide range of collaborative experiences, The following are key areas in which the System and so enhance CSO-CGIAR engagement. Office helps to facilitate the establishment of new partnerships and new ways of working: At the end of the Civil Society-CGIAR Forum, a new CSO-CGIAR Competitive Grants Program Expanded CSO-CGIAR partnerships. The was launched to CGIAR held its first-ever Civil Society-CGIAR support innovative projects involving civil society Forum at its Annual General Meeting 2006, which partners and other stakeholders in agricultural was hosted by the World Bank in Washington, DC. research for development, Attended by more than 100 civil society organization promote partnerships between the CGIAR and (CSO) representatives, the event featured a series CSOs that apply novel approaches for working of lively group discussions aiming to identify together better, and lessons learned and new avenues for improved create new avenues by which a growing collaboration, drawing on the experience of nearly network of CSO and CGIAR partners can continue to learn from one another through active knowledge sharing. In addition, the Science Council has launched System Office Units a study on CSO-CGIAR Center partnership to identify and disseminate the lessons learned. Implementation of the study is coordinated by the Science Council Secretariat. Communication and media relations. High-level briefings in Belgium, China, France and Netherlands organized by the CGIAR Secretariat received strong communications support, with the aim of fostering dialogue among key decision makers and opinion leaders. The newly established Media Unit has begun to build effective working relations with national Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 49 and international journalists, and with such media A culture for innovation and change. The Strategic organizations as the International Federation of Advisory Service for Human Resources has been Environmental Journalists and the World Federation helping Centers to further build and expand their of Science Journalists, contributing to a considerable organizational culture for innovation and change, expansion in media coverage of the work of the aiming at a value-driven organization with staff CGIAR Centers. collaborating in teams to achieve goals with honest, open communication. It thereby promotes Strengthened collective action. The Centers a working environment of trust, fairness and have formed the Alliance of the CGIAR Centers integrity, where people learn and strive for excellence. to enable them to contribute more effectively and efficiently to the mission of the CGIAR. The Monitoring, evaluation and stakeholder Alliance Principles and Procedures were formally perceptions. Centers undergo external program ratified in 2006. This was a watershed for the and management reviews regularly. In addition, Alliance, as its decisions are binding for all 15 all Centers report annually on their performance members. The Alliance Office worked to backstop, in terms of research results and institutional facilitate and coordinate the work of the Alliance, and financial health. A comprehensive stakeholder- including that of the Alliance Executive and the perceptions survey of partners is conducted Alliance Board. every 3 years (see page 45). The survey in 2006 provides strategic guidance on how to strengthen Intellectual property management. The Central partnerships and collaboration with stakeholder Advisory Service ­ Intellectual Property has organizations. In addition, the 17 Systemwide worked to develop capacities in intellectual and Ecoregional Programs of the CGIAR property management within Centers. It also underwent external review in 2006, providing aims to expand the community of practice a better understanding of the strengths and through engagement with partners outside weaknesses of research across different Center the CGIAR, such as Public Interest Intellectual mandates. These monitoring and evaluation Property Associates, Public Intellectual Property exercises are managed jointly by the Science Resource for Agriculture, St. Edmund's College Council and CGIAR secretariats, with other parts of the University of Cambridge, Michigan State of the System Office, such as the Internal Auditing University, Haryana State University and Unit, playing a crucial role in verifying data. Kerala State University, among others, to cooperatively advance the management of Efficiency through collaborative effort. Through intellectual property and technology-transfer concentrated efforts by the office of the Chief to foster the production of research products Information Officer and collaborative efforts as global public goods. with Centers, considerable financial savings were achieved across participating Centers. Partnerships for women in agricultural science. These savings, which amounted to more than The Gender and Diversity Program works US$500,000 (double last year's savings), are closely with Centers and Members to promote allocated for Systemwide or collective purchases the development of women leaders in agricultural of applications and software previously either science through a fellowship program for purchased by Centers at high cost or done without. enhancing the careers of women crop scientists By collective cooperation and purchasing, Centers in Africa. In addition, the program has organized not only saved considerable funds but were also mentoring and leadership training for some 50 able to provide to staff tools that were previously women scientists from eight African countries. unavailable but much needed. 50 2006 Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 51 Members of the CGIAR support the CGIAR Centers and programs of their 1 discussed here is an aggregation of Programs supported by the CGIAR. Overview 2006.2 The 2006 financial results reported here are based on the audited financial statements Background of the 15 Centers and four Challenge Programs supported by the CGIAR. The aggregation, analyses and reports, including this summary, were produced Overall Financial Outcome through a joint effort of a team from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) consisting of Kwame Akuffo-Akoto, Melba M. Aquino and Rodelita D. Panergalin, and the CGIAR Secretariat. Contributions to Centers and Programs 1The outcome is reported in US dollars. 2Through the new thematic program for food security to be launched in 2007, the EC will address the 2006 shortfall in favor of the CGIAR Centers. In this respect, a contribution agreement with the International Fund for Agricultural Development, totaling 45 million, is being negotiated. Signature of the agreement is foreseen by the autumn of 2007. 52 2006 Annual Report Box 1. Compliance with Financial Guidelines contributions from non-members increased by Expenditure by Object: The share of the costs of Resource Allocation Expenditure by Region: E L Summary of 2006 CGIAR Approved Program vs Actual Outcome B A TA (millions of US dollars) Actual 2006 2006 Plan Approved Actual 2005 Outcome at AGM05 Outcome Expenditure Centers1 418 430 417 Centers 29 24 25 Challenge Programs Partners 11 35 10 Total expenditure 458 489 452 Revenue Funding Centers2 386 398 415 Centers 29 24 25 Challenge Programs Partners 11 30 10 Subtotal funding 426 452 450 Earned income 22 17 10 Total revenue 448 469 460 (Financed from reserves)/Carried forward for future use (10) (20) 8 1 Includes System Office and CGIAR committees. 2 Includes System Office, CGIAR committees and unallocated Member funds. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 53 E Center Perspectives R CGIAR Funding 1 (millions of US dollars) FIGU 200 197 169 150 FY 2005 100 FY 2006 91 88 72 74 50 45 37 24 22 15 14 14 14 0 Europe North International Pacific Rim Developing Foundations Non-members America and regional countries organizations E L Top Member Contributions B B TA (millions of US dollars) 2005 2006 Industrialized Countries and Multilateral Organizations United States of America 54.8 United States of America 60.7 World Bank 50.0 World Bank 50.0 United Kingdom 44.2 United Kingdom 44.1 Canada 36.4 Canada 26.9 European Commission 30.6 Netherlands 20.1 Summary of Challenge Programs Developing Countries Nigeria 3.2 India 4.1 India 1.8 Nigeria 2.5 Brazil 1.3 Mexico 1.1 China 1.2 Turkey 1.0 Turkey 1.1 Kenya 0.9 E R Funding and Expenditure by Center, 2006 2 (millions of US dollars) FIGU 50 2006 Progress Report on Action Plans requested by ExCo 40 Funding 30 Expenditure 20 10 days of operating expenditure. Three Centers 0 IITA T T y y I IRRI CIP OR ish IFPRI CIA ILR IWMI Rice CIF CIMMYTICRISA ICARDA BioversitAgroforestr WorldF Africa rld Wo 54 2006 Annual Report E R Expenditure by Object 3 (millions of US dollars) FIGU Depreciation Depreciation 4% Travel Travel 4% 8% 8% Collaboration Collaboration & partnerships & partnerships 16% 14% 2005 2006 Personnel Personnel costs costs 45% 47% Supplies Supplies & services & services 27% 27% E R Expenditure by Region 4 (millions of US dollars) FIGU Central and Central and West Asia & North Africa West Asia & North Africa 10% 9% Latin America Latin America & Caribbean & Caribbean 14% 14% 2005 Sub-Saharan 2006 Sub-Saharan Africa Africa 46% 48% Asia Asia 30% 29% Conclusion Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 55 E L CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights B 1 TA Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 357 381 437 450 426 (of which unrestricted) 44% 44% 45% 43% 42% Earned income 14 17 16 10 22 Total 371 398 453 460 448 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 147 161 181 197 169 North America 65 76 87 91 88 Pacific Rim 26 24 26 24 22 Developing countries 12 12 17 15 14 Foundations 13 12 13 14 14 International and regional organizations 69 70 73 72 74 Subtotal 332 356 397 413 381 Non-members 25 25 40 37 45 Total 357 381 437 450 426 Top three contributors USA USA USA USA USA World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank United Kingdom EC United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Internationally recruited 1,060 1,065 1,063 1,100 1,115 Support 6,699 6,837 6,728 6,774 7,039 Total 7,759 7,902 7,791 7,874 8,154 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 49% 46% 45% 45% 47% Supplies & services 40% 31% 29% 27% 27% Collaboration & partnerships 12% 14% 16% 14% Travel 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% Depreciation 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Total (millions of US dollars) 381 395 425 452 458 Expenditure by region Sub-Saharan Africa 43% 45% 47% 46% 48% Asia 33% 32% 32% 30% 29% Latin America & the Caribbean 15% 14% 13% 14% 14% Central and West Asia & North Africa 9% 9% 9% 10% 9% Results of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$m] (10) 3 28 8 (10) Unrestricted net assets excluding fixed assets 96 127 156 158 145 Liquidity indicators Working capital (days expenditure)1 125 151 164 155 149 Current ratio 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 Adequacy of reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 96 124 145 137 124 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 9.3 9.7 15.5 15.8 16.8 Capital expenditure / depreciation 65% 63% 90% 101% 107% Indirect cost ratio 24% 21% 20% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio2 0.55 0.80 0.46 1 2004 and 2005 restated to exclude investment in nonmarketable government of India bonds held by ICRISAT. 2 2004 and 2005 restated to reflect refinement of formula (accounts receivables stated net of allowance for doubtful accounts). 56 2006 Annual Report E L CGIAR Funding to the Research Agenda by Member Group B 2 TA (millions of US dollars) Members 1972-2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Europe Austria 23.4 0.2 0.8 1.7 2.1 2.1 30.4 Belgium 88.0 4.9 6.4 7.1 5.1 7.4 118.9 Denmark 144.1 10.2 9.1 8.2 7.4 6.7 185.7 European Commission 279.3 24.5 27.2 26.3 30.6 6.6 394.5 Finland 36.1 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 45.2 France 78.7 7.8 7.6 6.3 5.0 7.1 112.4 Germany 290.7 10.5 11.6 15.3 15.4 15.3 358.7 Ireland 12.1 2.1 2.6 3.4 5.0 5.0 30.1 Israel 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.9 Italy 105.6 4.1 4.4 7.2 7.5 4.8 133.8 Luxembourg 5.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 8.7 Netherlands 189.5 17.0 19.2 20.9 24.1 20.1 290.9 Norway 113.4 10.4 11.2 11.7 12.6 13.4 172.7 Portugal 1.8 0.3 0.01 2.1 Spain 15.6 1.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.1 25.5 Sweden 150.8 10.7 13.6 14.6 14.3 14.4 218.4 Switzerland 248.3 16.0 15.6 18.1 18.2 16.7 333.0 United Kingdom 245.4 24.8 26.4 35.3 44.2 44.1 420.2 Subtotal 2,028.3 146.9 160.5 181.0 196.5 168.9 2,882.0 North America Canada 308.7 10.7 20.9 32.5 36.4 26.9 436.1 United States of America 998.2 54.9 55.5 54.2 54.8 60.7 1,278.3 Subtotal 1,306.9 65.6 76.4 86.7 91.2 87.6 1,714.4 Pacific Rim Australia 118.2 7.3 7.3 8.8 10.6 10.1 162.3 Japan 526.8 17.1 15.0 14.4 10.9 9.1 593.3 Korea, Republic of 7.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 14.9 New Zealand 2.3 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.0 6.7 Subtotal 654.7 26.2 24.4 25.9 24.0 22.1 777.1 Developing countries Bangladesh 1.0 0.2 1.2 Brazil 4.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 1.3 6.8 China 9.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 14.0 Colombia 17.1 2.5 2.3 1.9 0.6 0.4 24.8 Cote d'Ivoire 0.9 0.02 0.9 Egypt, Arab Republic of 7.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 10.5 India 13.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.8 4.1 23.0 Indonesia 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.3 Iran, Islamic Republic of 15.6 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 19.7 Kenya 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.9 3.7 Malaysia 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.2 Mexico 10.1 0.9 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.1 15.2 Morocco 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 Nigeria 15.1 1.5 4.6 3.2 2.5 26.9 Pakistan 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.4 Peru 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 4.2 Philippines 7.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 8.6 Russian Federation 0.2 0.2 Saudi Arabia 5.0 5.0 South Africa 2.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.5 6.6 Syrian Arab Republic 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 3.6 Thailand 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 Turkey 0.04 1.1 1.0 2.2 Uganda 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.4 Subtotal 118.8 11.6 12.4 16.6 15.3 14.6 189.3 Foundations Ford Foundation 59.6 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 64.6 IDRC 36.5 2.4 1.9 2.9 3.2 3.9 50.8 Kellogg Foundation 4.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 5.9 Rockefeller Foundation 60.6 7.5 7.8 8.5 8.7 8.4 101.4 Syngenta Foundation 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 4.6 Subtotal 160.9 13.0 11.9 13.3 14.0 14.2 227.3 International and regional organizations ADB 29.4 6.5 6.0 5.0 4.1 3.7 54.6 AfDB 17.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.1 19.5 Arab Fund 17.2 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 22.6 FAO 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.7 10.0 Gulf Cooperation Council 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 IDB 170.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 172.2 IFAD 68.5 5.8 5.7 6.2 7.5 8.3 102.0 OPEC Fund 14.7 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 16.6 UNDP 156.1 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.5 161.1 UNEP 4.9 1.3 3.6 6.6 6.1 6.5 29.0 World Bank1 795.8 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 1,045.9 Subtotal 1,276.1 69.3 69.9 72.7 72.1 74.1 1,634.2 Total Members 5,546 332 356 396 413 381 7,424 Non-members 89.7 24.8 25.4 40.4 36.8 44.8 261.8 Total 5,635 357 381 437 450 426 7,686 1Before 2002 excluded CGIAR Secretariat costs. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 57 E L Results of Operations by Center B 3 TA (millions of US dollars) 2005 2006 Agenda Earned Total Agenda Earned Total Center funding income revenue Expenditure Result funding income revenue Expenditure Result Africa Rice 11.6 0.2 11.7 10.9 0.8 11.1 0.4 11.5 11.2 0.3 Bioversity 35.6 (0.4) 35.2 34.6 0.6 31.2 0.9 32.2 34.6 (2.5) CIAT 40.3 1.2 41.5 42.4 (0.9) 36.5 1.4 37.9 41.8 (3.9) CIFOR 16.7 0.5 17.2 17.5 (0.3) 15.7 0.5 16.2 16.5 (0.3) CIMMYT 39.3 1.5 40.8 38.8 2.0 36.0 1.8 37.8 37.4 0.4 CIP 21.8 0.3 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.3 0.6 23.0 22.9 0.1 ICARDA 28.7 0.9 29.6 29.1 0.5 24.4 1.6 26.0 27.0 (1.0) ICRISAT 28.4 1.1 29.5 28.4 1.1 32.3 2.9 35.3 34.0 1.2 IFPRI 38.2 0.3 38.5 39.7 (1.2) 37.2 0.9 38.1 39.1 (1.0) IITA 41.2 1.5 42.8 40.2 2.6 45.1 1.4 46.5 44.4 2.1 ILRI 31.7 2.5 34.3 32.2 2.1 26.7 3.9 30.6 34.8 (4.2) IRRI 28.5 (0.4) 28.1 33.4 (5.3) 27.7 3.9 31.6 33.3 (1.7) IWMI 23.1 0.5 23.6 23.1 0.5 20.0 0.5 20.5 20.6 (0.1) World Agroforestry 30.2 0.3 30.5 30.0 0.5 29.9 1.2 31.1 31.9 (0.9) WorldFish 13.3 0.1 13.5 15.2 (1.7) 14.8 0.4 15.2 15.5 (0.3) Subtotal 428.5 10.3 438.7 437.5 1.2 410.9 22.4 433.3 445.0 (11.7) System level System Office and committees 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.3 9.3 9.3 Advance 3.9 3.9 3.9 (1.9) (1.9) (1.9) Unallocated Member funding 3.01 3.01 3.01 0.72 0.72 0.72 Additional Challenge 1.5 1.5 1.5 Program funds Subtotal 16.6 16.6 9.9 6.9 9.6 9.6 7.4 2.2 Less inter-center activities3 (5.4) (5.4) (5.4) (5.6) (5.6) (5.6) Subtotal System level 11.2 11.2 4.5 6.9 4.0 4.0 1.8 2.2 Total 439.6 10.3 449.9 442.0 8.1 414.9 22.4 437.3 446.9 (9.5) Plus Challenge Program 10.2 10.2 10.2 11.3 11.3 11.3 partners4 Total CGIAR Program 450 10 460 452 8 426 22 448 458 (10) 1From Italy, Brazil and Morroco. 2From Mexico and Morroco. 3Inter-Center activities netted out at the System, not Center, level to maintain the integrity of Center accounts. 4Challenge Program components implemented by CGIAR partners. 58 2006 Annual Report E L Center Finances, 2006 B 4 TA (millions of US dollars) es (+)/ aw(-) 0.3 (2.5) (3.9) (0.3) 0.4 0.1 (1.0) 1.2 (1.0) 2.1 (4.2) (1.7) (0.1) (0.9) (0.3) 0.7 1.5 2.2 2.2 (9.5) Reserv Dr (11.7) (10) Addition ned 0.4 0.9 1.4 0.5 1.8 0.6 1.6 2.9 0.9 1.4 3.9 3.9 0.5 1.2 0.4 22 Ear income 22.4 22.4 otalT 9.3 0.7 1.5 9.6 4.0 funding 11.1 31.2 36.5 15.7 36.0 22.3 24.4 32.3 37.2 45.1 26.7 27.7 20.0 29.9 14.8 (1.9) (5.6) 11.3 410.9 414.9 426 -center 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.4 5.6 5.6 6 activities Inter Non- 0.3 2.1 4.7 1.2 2.4 2.2 1.0 3.6 5.5 7.2 3.3 1.1 1.2 5.7 0.7 2.8 42.0 42.0 45 members egnlr & 2.5 6.1 4.7 2.0 5.5 3.1 6.8 7.1 5.2 3.6 3.1 5.1 3.4 3.8 3.3 9.3 65.2 (1.9) 1.5 8.9 8.9 74.1 74 Intl ganizations Financing or funding tions 0.4 0.8 3.1 0.7 2.1 0.6 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.5 0.8 Founda- 13.3 13.3 14 Member 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.3 1.6 2.4 1.0 3.0 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 14.0 14.7 15 Developing countries Rim 1.7 1.7 1.1 0.7 5.0 0.5 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.4 4.3 0.8 0.6 1.4 Pacific 21.9 21.9 22 North 2.2 2.5 9.1 1.5 8.9 5.2 4.3 6.3 5.9 5.0 1.8 6.0 2.0 0.7 10.4 15.6 86.9 86.9 88 America 4.0 9.6 9.8 8.2 7.0 7.0 Europe 17.4 12.8 10.2 10.9 11.6 14.3 12.3 10.6 11.6 11.7 161.9 161.9 169 otalT 9.3 11.2 34.6 41.8 16.5 37.4 22.9 27.0 34.0 39.1 44.4 34.8 33.3 20.6 31.9 15.5 (1.9) 7.4 (5.6) 1.8 11.3 445.0 446.9 458 eciation 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.6 0.7 0.7 1.3 2.6 2.0 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.4 15.7 15.7 16 Depr levarT 0.6 1.8 3.6 1.0 2.0 1.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.1 2.2 2.7 3.6 3.9 1.6 0.9 37 36.5 36.5 allocation e ation 0.6 5.4 4.4 4.8 5.6 3.7 2.8 4.0 9.4 6.4 2.2 3.8 2.8 3.4 2.6 1.6 61.8 61.8 63 partnerships Collabor & partners. Expenditur vices 3.8 8.2 2.2 6.0 8.4 8.4 1.3 9.9 3.3 3.1 ser 10.5 12.1 10.6 15.7 10.9 10.4 CGIAR Supplies & 121.6 121.6 125 by 5.2 8.1 7.7 5.3 18.8 21.9 16.6 10.6 11.3 15.9 17.6 18.0 16.9 14.4 12.5 13.9 209.4 215 Personnel 209.4 implemented 2 funds 1 partners funding Program level y Committees mar components Morroco. activities Program and and Member Prog Challenge System Program level Office ted -center Rice T Agroforestr ish inter Challenge CGIAR Mexico T A orld orldF System Advance Unalloca Additional Subtotal Less Subtotal Center Africa Bioversity CIA CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISA IFPRI IIT ILRI IRRI IWMI W W Subtotal System otalT Plus otalT From Challenge 1 2 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 59 E L CGIAR System Financial Position B 5 TA (thousands of US dollars) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents 149,076 201,662 237,047 221,853 255,899 Accounts receivable Members 72,864 87,768 69,717 83,907 56,363 Employees 3,078 2,797 3,594 4,105 4,726 Others 14,864 14,527 17,147 22,280 20,952 Inventories 4,447 4,165 4,540 4,593 6,001 Pre-paid expenses 3,673 3,262 2,994 3,401 3,140 Other current assets 3,327 4,567 16,924 6,580 943 Total current assets 251,329 318,748 351,963 346,719 348,024 Noncurrent assets Net property, plant and equipment 77,172 79,585 78,433 77,869 78,277 Investments 41,828 37,838 34,985 46,642 41,020 Others assets 3,012 1,223 7,076 Total noncurrent assets 119,000 117,423 116,430 125,734 126,373 Total assets 370,329 436,172 468,393 472,453 474,397 Liabilities and net assets Current liabilities Accounts payable Members 78,749 110,925 115,904 119,497 112,065 Employees 11,877 13,805 12,435 14,514 19,024 Others 34,177 47,181 49,216 44,430 49,254 Accruals and provisions 42,377 28,925 24,294 24,086 25,938 Total current liabilities 167,180 200,836 201,849 202,527 206,281 Long-term liabilities 27,906 25,876 30,486 31,897 42,383 Total liabilities 195,086 226,712 232,335 234,424 248,664 Net assets Unrestricted Unrestricted net assets excl fixed assets 96,039 126,820 155,539 157,967 145,088 Fixed assets 77,172 79,585 78,433 77,869 78,277 Unrestricted net assets 173,211 206,405 233,972 235,835 223,365 Restricted 2,032 3,054 2,086 2,194 2,368 Total net assets 175,243 209,459 236,058 238,029 225,733 Total liabilities and net assets 370,329 436,172 468,393 472,453 474,397 60 2006 Annual Report E L Summary of Challenge Programs, 2006 B 6 TA (millions of US dollars) Funds Available HarvestPlus Water & Food Generation SSA Total Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 7.0 7.0 Denmark 0.3 0.4 0.7 European Commission 0.9 0.9 France 2.1 2.1 Italy 0.6 0.6 Netherlands 1.2 1.2 Pioneer 0.02 0.02 Rockefeller Foundation 1.0 1.0 Sweden 0.1 0.1 0.2 Switzerland 1.5 0.4 1.9 United Kingdom 1.0 2.0 4.7 0.1 7.8 USA 1.8 1.8 Waternet 0.05 0.05 World Bank 2.0 2.7 3.3 0.2 8.2 Total 12.1 8.4 9.5 3.5 33.6 Expenditure HarvestPlus Water & Food Generation SSA Total Center Others Center Others Center Others Center Others Center Others Bioversity 0.2 1.0 0.02 1.2 CIAT 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.2 3.8 CIMMYT 1.0 0.4 3.3 4.7 CIP 0.6 0.1 1.1 1.8 ICARDA 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.0 ICRISAT 0.3 0.9 0.6 1.8 IFPRI 2.7 0.2 3.0 IITA 0.7 0.7 1.2 2.7 IRRI 0.6 2.5 1.6 4.7 IWMI 2.8 2.8 World Agroforestry 0.04 0.04 WorldFish 0.9 0.9 Subtotal 7.7 4.0 9.6 0.9 9.7 4.9 1.5 1.5 28.4 11.3 Total 11.6 10.5 14.6 3.0 39.7 2006 balance 0.5 (2.1) (5.0) 0.4 (6.3) 2005 cumulative balance 10.6 4.2 14.2 2.5 31.5 Cumulative balance 11.1 2.1 9.2 2.9 25.2 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 61 62 2006 Annual Report COUNTRIES REPRESENTATIVES COOPERATING INSTITUTIONS Australia Peter Core Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Austria Marcus Heinz Federal Ministry of Finance Bangladesh M.A. Hamid Miah Ministry of Agriculture Belgium Christian Panneels Ministry of Foreign Affairs Brazil Silvio Crestana Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply, Embrapa Canada Bruce Montador Canadian International Development Agency China Lijian Zhang Ministry of Agriculture Colombia Arturo Vega Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Côte d'Ivoire Tiemoko Yo Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources Denmark Hanne Carus Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DANIDA Egypt, Arab Republic of Hanaiya Abbas El-Itriby ARC, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Finland Kari Jantunen Ministry of Foreign Affairs France Henri Carsalade Commission on International Agricultural Research Germany Christoph Kohlmeyer Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development India Mangala Rai Ministry of Agriculture, ICAR Indonesia Hadi Pasaribu Ministry of Forestry Iran, Islamic Republic of Jafar Khalghani Ministry of Agriculture Jihad Ireland Cait Moran Department of Foreign Affairs Israel Dan Levanon Ministry of Agriculture and Science Italy Gioacchino Carabba Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan Takeshi Osuga Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kenya Romano Kiome Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Korea, Republic of Nam-Jin Chung Ministry of Agriculture Luxembourg Arsene Jacoby Ministry of Finance Malaysia Abdul Shukor bin Abdul Rahman Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute Mexico Victor Villalobos Arámbula Ministry of Agriculture Morocco Hamid Narjisse Ministry of Agriculture, INRA Netherlands Hans Wessels Ministry of Foreign Affairs New Zealand Peter Adams Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Nigeria Bamidele Folorunso Dada Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Norway Aslak Brun Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan Muhammad Ismail Qureshi Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Peru Ricardo Sevilla Panizo Ministry of Agriculture Philippines Nicomedes P. Eleazar Department of Agriculture Portugal Jorge Braga de Macedo Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education Romania Mihaiu Radulian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Russian Federation Gennadi A. Romanenko Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences South Africa Njabulo Nduli Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs Spain Gregorio Montero Gonzalez Ministry of Education and Science Sweden Eva Ohlsson Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SIDA Switzerland Beate Wilhelm Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Syrian Arab Republic Adel Safar Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Reform Thailand Adisak Sreesunpagit Department of Agriculture Turkey Masum Burak Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Uganda Denis Kyetere National Agricultural Research Organization United Kingdom David Howlett Department for International Development United States Franklin Moore United States Agency for International Development FOUNDATIONS REPRESENTATIVES Ford Foundation Jeff Campbell International Development Research Center (IDRC) Jean Lebel Kellogg Foundation Rick Foster Rockefeller Foundation Peter Matlon Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture Andrew J. Bennett INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTATIVES African Development Bank Frank Simona Kufakwandi Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development Abdulatif Y. Al-Hamad Asian Development Bank Kunhamboo Kannan European Commission Marc Debois Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN Alexander Müller Gulf Cooperation Council of the Arab States Hilal Ambusaidi Inter-American Development Bank Marco Ferroni International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Rodney Cooke OPEC Fund for International Development Suleiman Al-Herbish United Nations Development Programme Philip Dobie United Nations Environment Programme Shafqat Kakakhel World Bank Eija Pehu Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 63 Standing Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation (SPME) Ken Fischer, Chair Virender Lal Chopra Osvaldo Feinstein Paul Vlek Standing Panel on Mobilizing Science (SPMS) CGIAR Chair Lisa Sennerby Forsse, Chair Walter Baethgen Katherine Sierra, Vice President, Sustainable Development Network, World Bank Mariza Barbosa Maggie Gill CGIAR Director Francisco J.B. Reifschneider Standing Panel on Priorities and Strategies (SPPS) Michael Gale, Chair Reynaldo Martorell Cosponsors and Their Representatives Onesmo ole-MoiYoi Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Alexander Müller Scott Rozelle International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rodney Cooke United Nations Development Programme, Philip Dobie World Bank, Eija Pehu Genetic Resources Policy Committee (GRPC) Carlos Correa, Chair Orlando dePonti José Esquinas-Alcázar Emile Frison Michael Gale Anthony Gregson Executive Council Masaru Iwanaga Leonardo Montemayor Juan Lucas Restrepo Chair: Katherine Sierra Maria José Sampaio Co-Sponsors: Eija Pehu (World Bank) Partnership Committee Rodney Cooke (IFAD) Alexander Müller (FAO) Private Sector Committee Alliance of CGIAR Centers: Jim Godfrey William S. Niebur, Chair Science Council Chair: Per Pinstrup-Andersen Global Forum on Agricultural Research Chair: Bernward J.H. Garthoff Adel El-Beltagy Peter Jeffries Mumeka M. Wright OECD/DAC Americas: Hélène Corneau (Canada) CGIAR System Office Europe: Eva Ohlsson (Sweden) Marina Puccioni (Italy) CGIAR Secretariat Jonathan Wadsworth (UK) Francisco J.B. Reifschneider, Director Developing Countries Vinodhini David, Senior Executive Assistant Americas: Victor Villalobos Arámbula (Mexico) Anne Macharia, Team Assistant CWANA: Hanaiya Abbas El-Itriby (Egypt) Regional Fora: Mario Allegri (FORAGRO) Governance and Partnerships SSA: Romano Kiome (Kenya) Namita Datta, Governance Adviser Manuel Lantin, Science Adviser Foundations: Jean Lebel (IDRC) Maria Iskandarani, Technical Specialist Partners: William Niebur (Private Sector Committee Chair) Andrea Liverani, Young Professional Glyvyns Chinkhuntha (Civil Society) Jason Yauney, Operations Analyst Christiane Farqui, Junior Professional Associate Executive Secretary, ExCo: Iman Hassan, Program Assistant Francisco J.B. Reifschneider CGIAR Secretariat: Namita Datta Investor Relations and Finance Jason Yauney Standing Committees Zewdnesh Abegaz, Senior Program Assistant Su Ching Tan, Finance Associate Advisory Committees Information and Corporate Communications Science Council Fionna Douglas, Communications Advisor Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Chair Mariza Barbosa Virender Lal Chopra M. Caryl Jones-Swahn, Communications Associate Ken Fischer Zineb Benchekchou, Junior Professional Associate Michael Gale Josephine Hernandez, Senior Executive Assistant Onesmo ole-MoiYoi Barbara Eckberg, Program Assistant Lisa Sennerby-Forsse Science Council Secretariat Ruben Echeverria, Executive Director Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) Jim Ryan, Chair Antonio Flavio Avila Mywish Maredia 64 2006 Annual Report THE CGIAR Annabelle Njoki Waruhiu, Research Assistant Britta Killermann, Program Assistant Irmi Braun-Castaldi, Program Clerk Anastasia Saltas, Secretary Ann Burnet, Clerk Alliance of CGIAR Centers Office CGIAR Chairs, 1971-2006 Katherine Sierra, 2006- Central Advisory Service for Ian Johnson, 2000-2006 Intellectual Property Ismail Serageldin, 1994-2000 Victoria Henson-Apollonio, Manager V. Rajagopalan, 1991-1993 Wilfried Thalwitz, 1990-1991 Chief Information Officer W. David Hopper, 1987-1990 Florine Lim, Program Associate S. Shahid Hussain, 1984-1987 Warren Baum, 1974-1983 Gender and Diversity Richard H. Demuth, 1971-1974 Vicki Wilde, Program Leader Pauline Bomett, Administrative Assistant CGIAR Director, 2001- Internal Audit Francisco J.B. Reifschneider, 2001- John Fitzsimon, Director Gerardo Carstens, Associate Director CGIAR Executive Secretaries, John Mwangi, Associate Director Virginia Maria Salazar, Senior Internal Auditor 1972-2001 Erwin Lopez, Internal Auditor Alexander von der Osten, 1989-2001 Curtis Farrar, 1982-1989 Media Unit Michael Lejeune, 1975-1982 Catherine Mgendi, Media Specialist Harold Graves, 1972-1975 Strategic Advisory Service on Human Resources Science Council Chair, 2004- Unni Vennemoe, Director Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 2004- Center Committees Science Council Executive Director, 2004- Alliance Board (AB) Ruben Echeverria, 2004- James Godfrey, CIP, AB Chair Andrew J. Bennett, CIFOR Simon Best, ICRISAT interim Science Council Chair, Trond Bjorndal, WorldFish 2001-2003 Ross Garnaut, IFPRI Anthony Gregson, Bioversity Emil Javier, 2001-2003 Gaston Grenier, WARDA Guido Gryseels, ICARDA Bryan Harvey, IITA Technical Advisory Committee Chairs, Nobumasa Hatcho, IWMI 1971-2001 Lene Lange, CIMMYT Emil Q. Javier, 2000-2001 Keijiro Otsuka, IRRI Yves Savidan, CIAT Donald Winkelmann, 1994-1999 Eugene Terry, World Agroforestry Alex McCalla, 1988-1994 Uwe Werblow, ILRI Guy Camus, 1982-1987 Ralph Cummings, 1977-1982 Alliance Executive (AE) Joachim Voss, CIAT, AE Chair Sir John Crawford, 1971-1976 Pamela Anderson, CIP William Dar, ICRISAT Technical Advisory Committee Emile Frison, Bioversity Dennis Garrity, World Agroforestry Executive Secretaries, 1971-2003 Stephen Hall, WorldFish Shellemiah Keya, 1996-2003 Peter Hartmann, IITA Masaru Iwanaga, CIMMYT Guido Gryseels, 1995-1996 Frank Rijsberman, IWMI John Monyo, 1985-1994 Pape Abdoulaye Seck, WARDA Alexander von der Osten, 1982-1985 Carlos Sere, ILRI Frances Seymour, CIFOR Philippe Mahler, 1976-1982 Mahmoud Solh, ICARDA Peter Oram, 1971-1976 Joachim von Braun, IFPRI Robert Zeigler, IRRI Marketing Group Executive Committee Klaus von Grebmer, IFPRI, Chair Fionna Douglas, CGIAR Secretariat Peter Ninnes, CIMMYT Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 65 The CGIAR is a strategic partnership By 2006, the CGIAR had trained over 75,000 dedicated to mobilizing agricultural science developing country scientists and researchers. to reduce poverty, promote agricultural growth and protect the environment. It supports 15 Regarding CGIAR Center board membership, international research Centers conducting all 15 Centers balanced the number of groundbreaking work to nourish the future. members from the South and the North in 2006. Of the 188 board members, Among the 64 CGIAR Members, 25 are 59% came from developing countries, industrialized countries, 22 are developing and 34% were women. countries, 12 are international and regional organizations, and 5 are private foundations. Of the 15 directors leading CGIAR Centers in 2006, four were from developing countries and Thirteen of the 15 CGIAR Centers are located two were women. Women occupy 28% of in developing countries. CGIAR managerial positions. US$337 million in 2001 to $426 million in 2006, and work in over 100 countries. and membership increased from 58 to 64 in the same period. The CGIAR alliance employs over 8,500 scientists and technical staff in over 100 countries. The countries contributing the most CGIAR research staff are Australia, Colombia, France, India, Japan, Nigeria, Peru, Syria, United States and United Kingdom. 9 66 2006 Annual Report AB Alliance Board (board chairs of Centers supported by the CGIAR) AE Alliance Executive (directors general of Centers supported by the CGIAR) AGM Annual General Meeting of the CGIAR ARC Agricultural Research Center (Egypt) CBN Cassava Biotechnology Network CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical International (International Center for Tropical Agriculture), Colombia CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), Mexico CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa (International Potato Center), Peru CPWF Challenge Program on Water and Food of the CGIAR CSO civil society organization CWANA Central and West Asia and North Africa DAC Development Assistance Committee of OECD DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DRC Democratic Republic of Congo DREB dehydration response element binding protein Embrapa Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) ExCo Executive Council of the CGIAR FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FLAR Fondo Latinamericano para Arroz de Riego (Latin American Fund for Irrigated Rice) FORAGRO Fondo Regional de Tecnología Agropecuaria GCP Generation Challenge Programme of the CGIAR GDP gross domestic product GHI Global Hunger Index GRPC Genetic Resources Policy Committee of the CGIAR HKI Helen Keller International, USA IAR4D integrated agricultural research for development IARC international agricultural research center IBAMA Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e Dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India ICT-KM information and communication technologies and knowledge management IDRC International Development Research Centre IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute, United States IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria ILRI International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya and Ethiopia INEAC Institut national d'etudes agronomiques du Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo INERA Institut national pour l'etude et la recherche agronomique (National Institute for Agronomic Study and Research), Democratic Republic of Congo INIA National Institute for Agronomic Research, Mozambique Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 67 INIAP Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (National Institute of Agricultural and Livestock Research), Ecuador INRA Institut national de la recherche agronomique (National Agricultural Research Institute), Morocco IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (now renamed Bioversity International), Italy IRS internationally recruited staff IRRI International Rice Research Institute, Philippines IWMI International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka JIRCAS Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan LCDP Limpopo Community Development Program, South Africa LI-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development, Nepal LIMPAST Limpopo Agricultural Strategic Team, South Africa MDG millennium development goal NARS national agricultural research system(s) NGO nongovernmental organization NTFP non-timber forest product OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries R&D research and development RUAF Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and Food Security SARRNET Southern Africa Root Crops Research Network, Mozambique SGRP Systemwide Genetic Resources Program of the CGIAR SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SPIA Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of the CGIAR SPME Standing Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation of the Science Council of the CGIAR SPMS Standing Panel on Mobilizing Science of the CGIAR SPPS Standing Panel on Priorities and Strategies of the CGIAR SSA-CP Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program of the CGIAR STCP Sustainable Tree Crops Program TIGR The Institute of Genomic Research, USA UK United Kingdom UPA urban and peri-urban agriculture US, USA United States of America WARDA Africa Rice Center (formerly West Africa Rice Development Association), Benin 68 2006 Annual Report CGIAR Financial Report 2006 This detailed report on the financial performance of the CGIAR Centers in 2006 is based on their audited financial statements. This report, as well as the "Executive Summary of the 2006 CGIAR Financial Results", was produced through a joint collaborative effort between IRRI and the CGIAR Secretariat. The IRRI team was led by Kwame Akuffo-Akoto and included Melba M. Aquino and Rodelita D. Panergalin. Both reports are included in the 2006 CGIAR Annual Report, which is also available at the CGIAR's website, http://www.cgiar.org. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 2006 FUNDING...............................................................................................................7 Overall.........................................................................................................................7 Financial Outcome ......................................................................................................8 Funding Profile ............................................................................................................8 Disbursements ..........................................................................................................11 Center Perspective ...................................................................................................12 Unrestricted Funding .............................................................................................14 Restricted Funding ................................................................................................14 World Bank Funding ..............................................................................................15 Challenge Programs..............................................................................................15 AGENDA RESOURCES ...............................................................................................17 Allocation of Resources.............................................................................................17 By Region..............................................................................................................17 By Object of Expenditure.......................................................................................18 CGIAR Expenditure Over 35 Years ...........................................................................18 FINANCIAL POSITION.................................................................................................19 Net Assets.................................................................................................................21 Unrestricted Net Assets.............................................................................................21 Restricted Net Assets................................................................................................22 Net Fixed Assets .......................................................................................................22 Liquidity.....................................................................................................................23 Current Ratio.............................................................................................................23 Liquidity Indicator ......................................................................................................24 Adequacy of Reserve Indicator..................................................................................24 Indirect Cost Ratio.....................................................................................................25 Cash Management on Restricted Operations ............................................................26 Glossary of Terms.......................................................................................................59 i Figures Figure 1. CGIAR Funding................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Agenda Funding by Member Group................................................... 8 Figure 3. Funding by Center and Member Group, 2006 ................................. 10 Figure 4. Top Fifteen Member Contributions, 2006..........................................11 Figure 5. Funding by Center, 2006 ..................................................................12 Figure 6. Gaps in Funding Outcomes vs. Financing Plans, 2006.....................13 Figure 7. Changes in Center Funding..............................................................13 Figure 8. Funding by Type, 2006.....................................................................14 Figure 9. Distribution of World Bank Funding, 2006.........................................15 Figure 10. CGIAR Expenditure by Region.........................................................17 Figure 11. CGIAR Expenditure by Object ..........................................................18 Figure 12. Net Assets by Center, 2006..............................................................21 Figure 13. Unrestricted Net Assets excluding Net Fixed Assets by Center, 2006................................................................................22 Figure 14. Net Fixed Assets by Center, 2006 ....................................................22 Figure 15. Member Receivables by Center .......................................................23 Figure 16. CGIAR System Current Ratio...........................................................23 Figure 17. Current Ratio by Center, 2006..........................................................24 Figure 18. Working Capital by Center................................................................24 Figure 19. Adequacy of Reserves by Center .....................................................25 Figure 20. Indirect Cost Ratio.................................................................25 Figure 21. Cash Management on Restricted Operations (Restricted Accounts Receivable Ratio)......................................26 Box 1: Compliance with Financial Guidelines......................................................... 4 Box 2: Financial Concepts and Terminology........................................................... 6 Research Agenda............................................................................................ 6 Agenda Funding .............................................................................................. 6 Modalities of Funding....................................................................................... 6 CGIAR Agenda Matrix ..................................................................................... 6 Implementation ................................................................................................ 6 Tables Table A Summary of 2006 CGIAR Approved Program vs Actual Outcome........ 2 Table 1 CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights............................................ 5 Table 2 Results of Operations by Center............................................................9 Table 3 Summary of Challenge Programs, 2006..............................................16 Table 4 CGIAR System Financial Position .......................................................20 ii Annex Tables Table A1.1 CGIAR Funding to the Approved Research Agenda by Member Group ...............................................................................................27 Table A1.2 CGIAR Funding to the Approved Research Agenda by Center .................28 Table A2.1 Ranking of Funding to the CGIAR Research Agenda................................29 Table A2.2 CGIAR Funding by Member, 2006 ............................................................30 Table A2.3 Unrestricted Funding to the Agreed Research Agenda by Member Group by Center, 2006.....................................................................31 Table A2.4 Restricted Funding to the Agreed Research Agenda by Member Group by Center, 2006.....................................................................32 Table A2.5 Member Funding Disbursed through the World Bank............................33 Table A2.6 CGIAR Funding Outcomes by Center, 2006 .............................................34 Table A2.7 World Bank Funding by Center, 2002-2006 ..............................................35 Table A3.1 CGIAR Expenditure by Center ..................................................................36 Table A3.2 Centers' Research Agenda Expenditure by Region, 2006.........................37 Table A3.3 Centers' Research Agenda Expenditure by Object, 2006..........................38 Table A3.4 Centers' Staffing .......................................................................................39 Table A4.1 Centers' Financial Position, December 31, 2006.......................................40 Table A4.2 Capital Investments by Center ..................................................................41 Table A5.1 CGIAR Expenditure...................................................................................42 Table A6.1 CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights ................................................43 Table A6.2 Africa Rice Program and Resource Highlights...........................................44 Table A6.3 Bioversity Program and Resource Highlights ............................................45 Table A6.4 CIAT Program and Resource Highlights....................................................46 Table A6.5 CIFOR Program and Resource Highlights.................................................47 Table A6.6 CIMMYT Program and Resource Highlights..............................................48 Table A6.7 CIP Program and Resource Highlights......................................................49 Table A6.8 ICARDA Program and Resource Highlights ..............................................50 Table A6.9 ICRISAT Program and Resource Highlights..............................................51 Table A6.10 IFPRI Program and Resource Highlights...................................................52 Table A6.11 IITA Program and Resource Highlights .....................................................53 Table A6.12 ILRI Program and Resource Highlights .....................................................54 Table A6.13 IRRI Program and Resource Highlights.....................................................55 Table A6.14 IWMI Program and Resource Highlights ...................................................56 Table A6.15 World Agroforestry Program and Resource Highlights ..............................57 Table A6.16 WorldFish Program and Resource Highlights.......................................58 iii Acronyms ADB Asian Development Bank AfDB African Development Bank AGM Annual General Meeting CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research EC European Commission ExCo Executive Council FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations IDB Inter-American Development Bank IDRC International Development Research Centre IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development MDTF Multi Donor Trust Fund MTP Medium Term Plan NARS National Agricultural Research System(s) NGO Non-Governmental Organization OPEC Fund Fund of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries SC Science Council UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme Centers and Programs of the CGIAR Centers Africa Rice Africa Rice Center Bioversity Bioversity International (formerly IPGRI) CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IRRI International Rice Research Institute IWMI International Water Management Institute World Agroforestry World Agroforestry Centre WorldFish WorldFish Center Challenge Programs Generation HarvestPlus Sub-Saharan Africa Water & Food iv Financial Report 2006 INTRODUCTION Members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) support Centers and programs of their choice. The 2006 financial outcome1 discussed here is an aggregation of the audited financial statements of the 15 Centers and the four Challenge Programs supported by the CGIAR. Financial Outcome 2006 results show that the CGIAR was below the targets in terms of funding and expenditure. Contributions (Members and Non-members) amounted to $426 million, which was supplemented by earned income of $22 million. The significant decrease in funding was mainly due to the non-delivery of the 2006 European Commission (EC) contributions of approximately $30 million because extended negotiations with the World Bank could not be completed in 20062 The loss of these funds affected the 2 operating results and financial indicators of individual Centers and the System as a whole. If this funding had been delivered, the aggregate net result would have been a surplus of $20 million. The loss was partially offset by the reprogramming of $6 million of the World Bank's contribution, and by an increase of $8 million from Non-members. The results above affected the financial indicators for liquidity and reserves for the System as a whole. Reserves decreased by $10 million or 13 days of operations. The liquidity indicator also dropped, from 155 days to 149 days. These two indicators were down because expenditure increased while revenues decreased in 2006. Centers continued to make progress in improving their efficiency of operations as shown by the decreasing rate of indirect cost ratio at the System level. Table A (here and in other tables, some columns and rows may not sum precisely because of rounding) summarizes the approved CGIAR program for 2006 and the actual outcomes for 2005 and 2006. Table 1 show the CGIAR program and resource highlights for 2006 as well as for the previous four years. 1The outcome is reported in US Dollars 2Through the new thematic program for food security to be launched in 2007, the EC will address the 2006 shortfall in favor of the CGIAR Centers. In this respect, a contribution agreement with the International Fund for Agricultural Development totaling 45 million is being negotiated. Signature of the agreement is foreseen by the autumn of 2007. 1 Table A. Summary of 2006 CGIAR Approved Program vs Actual Outcome (millions of US dollars) Actual 2006 2006 Plan Approved Actual 2005 Outcome at AGM05 Outcome Expenditure Centers1 418 430 417 Challenge Programs Centers 29 24 25 Partners 11 35 10 Total expenditure 458 489 452 Revenue Funding Centers2 386 398 415 Challenge Programs Centers 29 24 25 Partners 11 30 10 Subtotal funding 426 452 450 Earned income 22 17 10 Total revenue 448 469 460 (Financed from reserves)/Carried forward for future use (10) (20) 8 1 Includes System Office and CGIAR Committees 2 Includes System Office, CGIAR Committees and unallocated Member funds Composition of Funding Both the unrestricted and restricted funding decreased in 2006 as compared with 2005. Unrestricted funding was $181 million, $14 million below 2005 (7%). Restricted funding went down to $245 million from $255 million in 2005 (4%) but slightly increased to 58% as a percentage of total funding compared with 57% of 2005. Sources of Funding Industrialized countries provided $279 million (65%) of the total funding in 2006, a decrease of $33 million (11%) over the 2005 contribution of $312 million (69% of the total). The significant decrease in funding was mainly due to the non-delivery of the 2006 European Commission (EC) contributions of approximately $30 million because extended negotiations with the World Bank could not be completed in 20063. The loss of these funds affected the operating results and financial indicators of individual Centers and the System as a whole. The loss was partially offset by the reprogramming of $6 million of the World Bank's contribution. International and regional organizations and Foundations provided $88 million or 21% (2005: $86 million or 19%), and Developing countries and Non-members provided the remaining $59 million or 14% (2005: $52 million or 12%). European Members make their contributions in their national currency, which Centers then translate into US dollars. In 2006, these currencies were generally strong in relation to the US dollar and the net impact on the 2006 contributions was an additional $4.5 million compared with a reduction of $2.4 million in 2005. 3See Footnote 2. 2 Program Expenditure Program expenditure in 2006 was $458 million, an increase of $6 million (1%) over 2005. Expenditure in Sub-Saharan Africa comprised 48% (2005: 46%), Asia, 29% (2005: 30%) and Central and West Asia and North Africa, 9% (2005: 10%). Expenditure in Latin America and the Caribbean remained at 14%. Expenditure for personnel costs slightly increased to 47% from the 45% in 2005 with a corresponding decrease in collaboration and partnerships to 14% from 16% in 2005. Supplies & services, travel and depreciation remain constant at 27%, 8% and 4% respectively. The share of each object of expenditure to total expenditure varies among the Centers, reflecting the wide variability in the type of operations across the CGIAR system. Center Highlights The stability noted at the System level reflects a range of outcomes at the individual Centers. Contributions increased for 4 Centers compared with 8 in 2005 while 11 Centers had reduced contributions. Two Centers, ICRISAT and WorldFish increased between 10% and 15%. IITA increased by 9% and CIP by 2%. Four Centers (Africa Rice, IFPRI, IRRI, and World Agroforestry) had decreases between 1% and 5%; CIAT, CIFOR, and CIMMYT had reductions between 6% and 10% and Bioversity, ICARDA, and IWMI decreased between 11% and 15%. ILRI decreased by 16%. Operating results (contributions and Center earned income less expenditure) show that five Centers (Africa Rice, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT, and IITA) ended the year with an excess of revenue over expenditure compared with ten in 2005. As a percentage of total revenue, these five Centers had an excess of revenue over expenditure below 5%. Ten Centers had excess of expenditure over revenue. Six of these (CIFOR, ICARDA, IFPRI, IWMI, World Agroforestry, and WorldFish) had excess of expenditure over revenue below 5% while four Centers, Bioversity, CIAT, ILRI, and IRRI were between 5% and 15%. Financial Position The 2006 financial data confirm that, despite the decrease in 2006 funding, the CGIAR as a whole was in a strong financial position. Cash and cash-equivalent balances totaled $288 million at the end of 2006 (2005: $260 million). This figure includes $32 million in cash investments disclosed under non-current assets (2005: $38 million). At the end of 2006, $56 million, equivalent to 13% of the total funding or approximately 2 months of funding, was outstanding as accounts receivable from Members. Net property, plant and equipment amounts to $78 million, which is the same as in 2005. Total net assets at the end of the year were $226 million (2005: $238 million). These assets were made up of $145 million (2005: $158 million) in unrestricted net assets, $78 million (same with 2005) in investments in fixed assets and $3 million (2005: $2 million) in restricted net assets. 3 Box 1. Compliance with Financial Guidelines To ensure transparency and consistency in financial practices and the presentation of financial information, the 15 CGIAR-supported Centers are required to follow financial guidelines issued by the CGIAR Secretariat. Developed with the input of Center finance personnel and external financial experts, these guidelines aim to bring the CGIAR's financial practices into conformity with the best international standards. As part of the annual review of substantive financial performance, and in keeping with practice established in 2004, a peer group of CGIAR Centers finance directors, the CGIAR internal audit director and a finance expert from the World Bank have reviewed the 2006 externally audited financial statements of the Centers to assess their compliance with CGIAR accounting policies and reporting guidelines, as well as to validate the analysis underpinning the CGIAR financial report. The peer review also made a number of recommendations to promote best practice in fiduciary management and financial reporting. In 2006, the Financial Management Guideline (FG1) was the latest standard in the series to be updated to meet international best practice. 4 Table 1. CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 357 381 437 450 426 (of which unrestricted) 44% 44% 45% 43% 42% Earned income 14 17 16 10 22 Total 371 398 453 460 448 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 147 161 181 197 169 North America 65 76 87 91 88 Pacific Rim 26 24 26 24 22 Developingcountries 12 12 17 15 14 Foundations 13 12 13 14 14 International and regional organizations 69 70 73 72 74 Sub-total 332 356 397 413 381 Non-members 25 25 40 37 45 Total 357 381 437 450 426 Top three contributors USA USA USA USA USA World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank United Kingdom E.C. United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 1,060 1,065 1,063 1,100 1,115 Support 6,699 6,837 6,728 6,774 7,039 Total 7,759 7,902 7,791 7,874 8,154 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 49% 46% 45% 45% 47% Supplies & services 40% 31% 29% 27% 27% Collaboration & partnerships 12% 14% 16% 14% Travel 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% Depreciation 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Total (millions of US dollars) 381 395 425 452 458 Expenditure by region Sub-Saharan Africa 43% 45% 47% 46% 48% Asia 33% 32% 32% 30% 29% Latin America & the Caribbean 15% 14% 12% 14% 14% Central and West Asia & North Africa 9% 9% 9% 10% 9% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$m] (10) 3 28 8 (10) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 96 127 156 158 145 Liquidity indicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 1 125 151 164 155 149 Current ratio 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 Adequacy of reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 96 124 145 137 124 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 9.3 9.7 15.5 15.8 16.8 Capital expenditure / depreciation 65% 63% 90% 101% 107% Efficiency of operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 24% 21% 20% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 2 0.55 0.80 0.46 12004 and 2005 restated to exclude investmentin non-marketable GovernmentofIndia bondsheld byICRISAT. 22004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 5 Box 2. Financial Concepts and Terminology Research Agenda. The research agenda is made up of all the Center activities. One or more Centers may execute these activities jointly with national agricultural research systems (NARS), advanced research institutions (ARIs), or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Centers develop the agenda and implement programs in collaboration with partners. The ExCo and, if necessary, SC reviews the agenda and, if appropriate, recommends it for CGIAR financing. Projects in the agenda should: · Aim to produce research or research-related international public goods (including training) · Be of high priority with regard to accomplishment of the CGIAR's goals and objectives · Have acceptable probabilities of success, and · Have no alternative producers or sources of supply with suitable costs or reliability. Agenda Funding. The research agenda, as endorsed by the CGIAR, is eligible for financing by Members, including the World Bank. All Centers and partners are encouraged to maximize financing. Mechanisms to ensure that the agenda is fully funded have evolved from unsuccessful attempts to "guarantee" full financing through the sole use of World Bank funds. Members, instead of the World Bank alone, now act collectively to fill any financial gaps that might arise in the course of the year. Modalities of Funding. Centers are primarily financed through annual support from CGIAR Members. Modest amounts are also available from Centers' annual miscellaneous income, including ad hoc contributions from organizations that are not CGIAR Members. Member financing may be unrestricted and directed to the CGIAR with flexibility regarding allocation based on CGIAR priorities; or to Centers, or to programs. Alternatively, Member financing may be restricted and directed to a specific Center program, project, subproject, or activity as defined in a contractual agreement. All Members are expected to help pay the full cost of Center operations, including administrative costs, of which they must bear a proportionate share. All Members are encouraged to provide general (i.e., unrestricted) support. Members usually disburse funds directly to Centers throughout the year. The CGIAR Secretariat provides disbursement services, through the World Bank, to Members. CGIAR Agenda Matrix. The distribution of financial resources is presented as the CGIAR research agenda matrix. Activities are divided into five groups representing the principal undertakings of the CGIAR. The matrix reflects the full allocation of Center project costs among the CGIAR activities. Projects are the basic units of activity. Approximately 114 projects were ongoing in 2006. The CGIAR has identified and implemented several system wide programs to respond to specific challenges and strengthen collaboration among Centers and with partners. Implementation. Centers implement the research agenda in partnership with advanced institutions, NGOs, and NARS. These joint ventures might involve shared tasks at different points on the research and development continuum, from laboratory-based research to field-level experiments. Funding of such ventures is included in financing for the CGIAR research agenda. 6 2006 FUNDING Overall In 2006, CGIAR Members and Non-members provided $426 million to fund the year's research agenda (see box 2 above). This figure was $26 million (6%) below the approved financing plan target of $452 million and $24 million (5%) below 2005 funding. Figure 1 shows CGIAR funding from 2002 to 2006 in historical dollars. The annex Table A1.1 presents details of Members' support and Table A1.2 shows the allocations by Center. Annex Table A2.1 ranks CGIAR funding by Member for the period 2002-2006. Annex Table A2.2 presents 2006 funding by Member (both restricted and unrestricted). Annex Table A2.3 presents the amount of unrestricted funds and Table A2.4 presents the amount of restricted funds provided by each Member to each Center in support of their 2006 research programs. Figure 1. CGIAR Funding (millions of US dollars) 450 430 410 390 370 350 330 310 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 7 Evolution of 2006 Funding to the Research Agenda At AGM05, the CGIAR approved a financing plan of $489 million for 2006 of which $452 million was forecast from contributions of Members and Non-members, $17 million from Center earned income and $20 million to be financed from reserves. Financial Outcome The $426 million contributions from Members and Non-members and Center earned income of $22 million resulted in total revenue of $448 million for the CGIAR in 2006. Total expenditure was $458 million, of which $7.4 million was for CGIAR Systems Office and Committees, resulting in $10 million excess of expenses over revenue at the System level as detailed in Table 2. By comparison, the CGIAR had an overall operating surplus of $8 million in 2005. Funding Profile Fifty-eight of the 64 CGIAR Members4 contributed $381 million ($413 million in 2005), and the remaining $45 million came from a broad range of sources including Non-member Foundations and NGOs. Excluding the Non-member funding, the average Member funding was approximately $6.6 million, slightly lower than the 2005 average of $6.9 million. Figure 2 compares the composition of funding for 2006 with that of 2005. Figure 3 presents the composition of funding by Center and Member group in 2006. Figure 2. Agenda Funding By Member Group International & regional (millions of US dollars) organizations Developing countries 450 North America 400 Non-members 350 300 Foundations 250 200 Pacific Rim 150 100 Europe 50 0 2005 2006 4, For presentation purposes, Members are divided into four distinct groups: industrialized countries (22), Developing countries (25), Foundations (5), and International and regional organizations (12). Industrialized countries are further divided along geographical lines into three subgroups: Europe, North America and Pacific Rim. 8 Table 2. Results of Operations by Center (millions of US dollars) 2005 2006 Agenda Earned Total Agenda Earned Total Center Expenditure Result Expenditure Result funding income revenue funding income revenue Africa Rice 11.6 0.2 11.7 10.9 0.8 11.1 0.4 11.5 11.2 0.3 Bioversity 35.6 (0.4) 35.2 34.6 0.6 31.2 0.9 32.2 34.6 (2.5) CIAT 40.3 1.2 41.5 42.4 (0.9) 36.5 1.4 37.9 41.8 (3.9) CIFOR 16.7 0.5 17.2 17.5 (0.3) 15.7 0.5 16.2 16.5 (0.3) CIMMYT 39.3 1.5 40.8 38.8 2.0 36.0 1.8 37.8 37.4 0.4 CIP 21.8 0.3 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.3 0.6 23.0 22.9 0.1 ICARDA 28.7 0.9 29.6 29.1 0.5 24.4 1.6 26.0 27.0 (1.0) ICRISAT 28.4 1.1 29.5 28.4 1.1 32.3 2.9 35.3 34.0 1.2 IFPRI 38.2 0.3 38.5 39.7 (1.2) 37.2 0.9 38.1 39.1 (1.0) IITA 41.2 1.5 42.8 40.2 2.6 45.1 1.4 46.5 44.4 2.1 ILRI 31.7 2.5 34.3 32.2 2.1 26.7 3.9 30.6 34.8 (4.2) IRRI 28.5 (0.4) 28.1 33.4 (5.3) 27.7 3.9 31.6 33.3 (1.7) IWMI 23.1 0.5 23.6 23.1 0.5 20.0 0.5 20.5 20.6 (0.1) World Agroforestry 30.2 0.3 30.5 30.0 0.5 29.9 1.2 31.1 31.9 (0.9) WorldFish 13.3 0.1 13.5 15.2 (1.7) 14.8 0.4 15.2 15.5 (0.3) Subtotal 428.5 10.3 438.7 437.5 1.2 410.9 22.4 433.3 445.0 (11.7) System level System Office and Committees 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.3 9.3 9.3 - Advance 3.9 3.9 3.9 (1.9) (1.9) (1.9) - Unallocated Member funding 3.0 93 81 3.0 813 3.0 8 193 0.7 49210 0.7 2 0.7 10 492 AdditionalChallenge Program funds 1.5 1.5 1.5 Subtotal 16.6 - 16.6 9.9 6.9 9.6 - 9.6 7.4 2.2 less Inter-Center activities 3 (5.4) (5.4) (5.4) (5.6) (5.6) (5.6) Subtotal System level 11.2 - 11.2 4.5 6.9 4.0 - 4.0 1.8 2.2 Total 439.6 10.3 449.9 442.0 8.1 414.9 22.4 437.3 446.9 (9.5) plus Challenge Programs Partners 4 10.2 10.2 10.2 11.3 11.3 11.3 Total CGIAR Program 450 10 460 452 8 426 22 448 458 (10) 1From Italy,BrazilandMorroco. 2From MexicoandMorroco. 3Inter-Center activities nettedoutattheSystem,notCenter,leveltomaintaintheintegrity of Center accounts. 4ChallengeProgram components implementedby CGIAR partners. 9 Figure 3. Fundingby CenterandMemberGroup, 2006 Non-members (millions of US dollars) Foundations 45 International & regional 40 organizations Developingcountries 35 30 NorthAmerica 25 Pacific Rim 20 15 Europe 10 5 Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFO R CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IRRI IWMI World WorldFish Agroforestry Overall, funding decreased by $24 million (5%) compared with 2005. The significant decrease in funding was mainly due to the non-delivery of the 2006 European Commission (EC) contributions of approximately $30 million because extended negotiations with the World Bank could not be completed in 20065. The loss was partially offset by the reprogramming of $6 million of the World Bank's contribution, and an increase of $8 million from non-members. The top fifteen contributors accounted for approximately 73% ($312 million) of contributions for the research agenda in 2006. The United States of America, contributing $60.7 million, was the single largest contributor, followed by the World Bank ($50 million), United Kingdom ($44.1 million) and Canada ($26.9 million). These first four contributors held the same rankings since 2004. Figure 4 shows the top 15 contributors for 2006 in descending rank. United States of America has the biggest increase in contribution this year, $5.9 million bigger than the $54.8 million of 2005, which partially offset the $9.5 million decrease in Canadian grant. Contributions from the Pacific Rim decreased by $2.1 million (9% below 2005). Contributions from Developing countries went down by $0.6 million (4% below 2005). Brazil who had $1.3 million contributions in 2005 has none in 2006. Most of the Member developing countries reduced their contribution to CGIAR as a whole; including Nigeria who was the top contributor for 2005. This decrease was offset by the increases in contribution from; India (who rank as the top contributor for 2006 of the Member Developing countries), by $2.3 million, Kenya by $0.5 million and Mexico by $0.4 million. 5See footnote 2. 10 Figure 4. Top Fifteen Member Contributions, 2006 (millions of US Dollars) United States of America World Bank United Kingdom Canada Netherlands Switzerland Germany Sweden Norway Australia Japan Rockefeller Foundation IFAD Belgium France 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Disbursements CGIAR Members have the option to disburse their funding either directly to the Centers or through the Secretariat using the World Bank's payment system. In 2005, a new instrument ­ the Multi Donor Trust Fund Administrative Agreement (MDTFAA) ­ was finalized in order to enhance accountability and to bring the CGIAR trust fund into compliance with the World Bank's reformed trust regime. The MDTFAA constitutes a formal agreement between the World Bank and the contributing Member. In 2006, approximately $80 million (19% of total funding) from 11 Members was disbursed through the World Bank, while $109 million (24% of total funding) from 16 Members in 2005. The main advantage to Members of using the Bank's payment system is a reduction in the number of disbursement transactions. Members make only one transfer to the World Bank account instead of as many as 15 to individual Center's bank accounts. Since 2001, Centers entered into formal contractual agreements with the World Bank concerning the accountability for the funds received by them. Annex Table A2.5 illustrates Member disbursements through the World Bank in 2005 and 2006. Disbursement of the World Bank's funding is also managed by the CGIAR's Secretariat. 11 Center Perspective 6 Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of funding by Center in 2006. IITA received $45 million in funding. Five Centers (Bioversity, CIAT, CIMMYT, ICRISAT and IFPRI) received between $30 million and $40 million. Five others (CIP, ICARDA, ILRI, IRRI, and World Agroforestry) received between $20 million and $30 million while the final four (Africa Rice, CIFOR, IWMI and WorldFish) received between $10 and $20 million. Figure 5. Funding byCenter, 2006 (millions of US dollars) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 IITA IFPRI CIAT CIMMYT ICRISAT Biov e rsity World IRRI ILRI ICARDA CIP IWMI CIFOR WorldFish Africa Rice Agrofore stry Figure 6 shows gaps in funding outcomes versus financing plan per Center in 2006. As shown, funding for five Centers was above the financing plans target approved at AGM05: CIAT ($0.2 million or 1%); CIMMYT ($5.5 million or 18%); ICARDA ($1.2 million or 5%); ICRISAT ($2.5 million or 9%) and IFPRI ($4.7 million or 14%). Funding for six Centers was within 10% below plan, thus broadly in line with, the financing plan targets. These were: Africa Rice, CIFOR, CIP, IITA, World Agroforestry, and WorldFish. Four Centers, however, have funding between 10% and 20% below targets: Bioversity, ILRI, IRRI, and IWMI. 6To maintain the integrity of Center financial statements, the presentation of funding received by Centers (and expenditure reported) includes Inter-Center activities. However, at the aggregate CGIAR level, these activities (funding and expenditure) are eliminated to avoid double counting. In 2006 Inter-Center activities totaled $5.6 million. 12 Figure 6. Gaps in Funding Outcomes vs. Financing Plans, 2006 (millions of US dollars) 7 5 3 1 -1 -3 -5 -7 CIMMYT IFPRI ICRISAT ICARDA CIAT WorldFish IITA CIP CIFOR Africa Rice World IWMI IRRI ILRI Bioversity Agroforestry As Figure 7 shows7, contributions increased for four Centers (red boxes), compared with eight in 2005. Seven Centers -- Africa Rice, CIAT, CIFOR, CIMMYT, IFPRI, IRRI and World Agroforestry experienced reductions within 10% while Bioversity, ICARDA, ILRI and IWMI had decreases between 11% and 16%. Annex Table A2.6 presents 2006 funding outcomes by Center. Figure 7. Changes in Center Funding (millions of US dollars) 50 45 2006 2005 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 IITA IFPRI CIAT CIMMYT ICRISAT Bioversity World IRRI ILRI ICARDA CIP IWMI CIFOR WorldFish AfricaRice Agroforestry 7Figures include "Inter-Center activities". 13 Modalities of Funding Analysis of categories and types of funding provide another perspective on the challenges faced by Centers in implementing the approved research agenda. Depending on the degree of flexibility in its use, CGIAR funding has been traditionally divided into two broad categories: unrestricted and restricted. Unrestricted Funding Unrestricted funding refers to funds to support a Center as a whole. The World Bank's funding for general support is the best example of this type of funding because, within the research agenda, allocation of the funding is totally unconstrained. Centers can allocate unrestricted funds to any program or cost within the research agenda on the basis of institutional needs and priorities. Restricted Funding There are three levels of restriction associated with restricted contributions in the CGIAR: the least restricted are programs (e.g., Challenge Programs, System Wide and Ecoregional Programs), followed by targeted (e.g., geographic), and the most restricted are projects (usually requiring line item reporting). The projects category is funding restricted by contract, which refers to funds that must be expended in accordance with a contract between a Member and the Center implementing the project, subproject, or activity. Funds for each line item in the budget are specified. Any reallocation of funds between budget lines generally requires the prior consent of the Member. Accountability requirements are detailed in the contract, which often call for financial audits on a periodic (annual) or end-of-project basis. Unrestricted funding was $181 million for 2006 and $195 million for 2005 or 42% and 43% respectively of total funding. Restricted support was $245 million (58% of total funding), a decrease of $10 million (4%) below 2005. Figure 8 below shows the funding by type per Center. Figure 8. Funding byType, 2006 (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted 50 Restricted 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 IITA IFPRI CIAT CIMMYT ICRISAT Biov e rsity World IRRI ILRI ICARDA CIP IWMI CIFOR WorldFish Africa Rice Agrofore stry 14 World Bank Funding In 2005, the World Bank initiated a new approach to allocating its support to the CGIAR Centers, a general support and performance based portions. Funding brackets based on the previous year's actual funding (excluding the Bank's support and inter-Center activities) were established as the base for this general support. The remaining portion is allocated based on performance which is assessed by using a set of indicators. Three performance categories were used: satisfactory, superior and outstanding. Of the Bank's 2006 CGIAR support, approximately $26.5 million was allocated to Centers as support, $6.7 million for Challenge Programs, $0.4 million for the global public goods, $2.5 million for System wide Programs and $0.5 million in special allocations. $4.5 million were allocated to Centers and $1.5 million to challenge programs to partially compensate the non-delivery of 2006 EC funding. The balance of $7.4 million went to cover the costs of System level Committees and the Systems Office. Table A2.7 represents the allocation of the World Bank's $50 million CGIAR funding in 2006, as well as for the prior four years. Figure 9 illustrates the distribution of the 2006 World Bank funding by Center, and the share of the World Bank's funding in each Center's total funding. As in previous years, all 15 Centers received funding from the World Bank in 2006. Figure 9.Distribution ofWorld Bank Funding,2006 millionsofU.S.dollars percentoftotal funding 5 20% 4 15% 3 10% 2 5% 1 0 0% CIMMYT IFPRI CIAT Bioversity IRRI IITA IWMI ICARDA CIP ICRISAT World ILRI WorldFish AfricaRice CIFOR Agroforestry Challenge Programs Funding for Challenge Programs decreased by $4.8 million in 2006. The biggest decrease was in the Generation Challenge Programs due mainly to the non-delivery of the EC funding. During the year, $33.6 million were available for CPs compared with $38.4 million in 2005. An amount of $40 million8 was spent (compared with $35 million in 2005) resulting in a reduction of $6 million from cumulative balances of the Challenge Program fund. Table 3 summarizes Challenge Program revenue and expenditure. 8$29 million of Challenge Program components were implemented by Centers and $11 million by CGIAR partners 15 Table3. SummaryofChallengePrograms,2006 (millions ofUSdollars) Harvest Water & Gener- FundsAvailable Plus Food ation SSA Total Bill& MelindaGatesFoundation 7.0 - - - 7.0 Denmark 0.3 - 0.4 0.7 European Commission - - - 0.9 0.9 France - 2.1 - - 2.1 Italy - - - 0.6 0.6 Netherlands - - - 1.2 1.2 Pioneer - - 0.02 - 0.02 RockefellerFoundation - - 1.0 - 1.0 Sweden 0.1 - 0.1 - 0.2 Switzerland - 1.5 0.4 - 1.9 United Kingdom 1.0 2.0 4.7 0.1 7.8 USA 1.8 - - - 1.8 Waternet - 0.05 - - 0.05 World Bank 2.0 2.7 3.3 0.2 8.2 Total 12.1 8.4 9.5 3.5 33.6 Expenditure HarvestPlus Water&Food Generation SSA Total Center Others Center Others Center Others Center Others Center Others Bioversity 0.2 - 1.0 0.02 1.2 CIAT 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.2 3.8 CIMMYT 1.0 0.4 3.3 - 4.7 CIP 0.6 0.1 1.1 - 1.8 ICARDA 0.2 0.5 0.4 - 1.0 ICRISAT 0.3 0.9 0.6 - 1.8 IFPRI 2.7 0.2 - - 3.0 IITA 0.7 - 0.7 1.2 2.7 IRRI 0.6 2.5 1.6 - 4.7 IWMI - 2.8 - - 2.8 World Agroforestry - 0.04 - - 0.04 WorldFish - 0.9 - - 0.9 Sub-total 7.7 4.0 9.6 0.9 9.7 4.9 1.5 1.5 28.4 11.3 Total 11.6 10.5 14.6 3.0 39.7 2006Balance 0.5 (2.1) (5.0) 0.4 (6.3) 2005Cumulativebalance 10.6 4.2 14.2 2.5 31.5 Cumulativebalance 11.1 2.1 9.2 2.9 25.2 16 AGENDA RESOURCES Spending on the 2006 research agenda amounted to $458 million (including challenge programs), an increase of $6 million or 1% over 2005 ($452 million). Seven Centers had lower expenditure in 2006 compared with 2005. These were CIAT (a reduction of $0.6 million or 1%), CIFOR ($1.0 million or 6%), CIMMYT ($1.4 million or 4%), ICARDA ($2.1 million or 7%), IFPRI ($0.6 million or 2%), IRRI ($0.1 million, or 0.3%) and IWMI ($2.5 million or 11%). Bioversity has the same level of expenditure in 2005 and 2006, $34.6 million. The remaining 7 Centers had higher expenditure in 2006, the most significant of which is ICRISAT with 20% increase. Allocation of Resources The allocation of resources is reviewed from the perspective of CGIAR regions and object of expenditure. Annex Table A3.1 provides data on expenditure by Center from 2002 to 2006. By Region Figure 10 presents the 2006 allocation of CGIAR resources by region. Expenses remain consistent with past trends and confirm the priority focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. All Centers invested in programs for Sub-Saharan Africa in 2006 as shown in Table A3.2. Eight Centers ­ Africa Rice, Bioversity, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, and World Agroforestry ­ accounted for the majority of allocations to this region. CIFOR, IRRI, IWMI, and WorldFish accounted for the majority of allocations to Asia. More than half of the allocations for CWANA came from ICARDA while CIAT and CIP accounted for almost half of the allocations made in Latin America and the Caribbean. Figure 10. CGIAR Expenditure by Region 2005 2006 Central and Central and WestAsia & WestAsia & North Africa North Africa 10% 9% Latin America & Caribbean Latin America & Sub-Saharan 14% Caribbean Africa Sub-Saharan 14% 46% Africa 48% 100 Asia Asia 30% 29% 17 By Object of Expenditure9 There were no significant shifts by object of expenditure. Expenditure on personnel slightly increased to 47% from the 45% in 2005 with a corresponding decrease in collaboration and partnerships from 16% in 2005 to 14% (Figure 11). Supplies & services, travel and depreciation remained constant at 27%, 8% and 4% respectively. Annex Table A3.3 provides detailed Center-level information on object of expenditure. Annex Table A3.4 presents data on CGIAR staffing from 2002 to 2006. Figure 11. CGIAR Expenditure by Object 2005 2006 Travel Depreciation Depreciation 8% 4% Travel 4% 8% Collaboration Collaboration & &partnerships partnerships 16% 14% Personnel Personnel costs costs 47% 45% 99 Supplies & Supplies & services services 27% 27% CGIAR Expenditure Over 35 Years To analyze CGIAR research from the perspective of the record of expenditure, the CGIAR Secretariat organized all available Center data on resource use from 1972 to 2006. Annex Table A5.1 summarizes all CGIAR expenditure from 1972 to 2006 by Center, sector/commodity, region, and object. 9The new CGIAR Accounting Guidelines introduced Collaboration and partnerships as a fifth object of expenditure beginning 2003. 18 FINANCIAL POSITION The aggregations of 2002-2006 Center data, shown in Table 4 and elaborated below, reflect the financial position of the CGIAR System as a whole. Annex Table A4.1 provides details by Center for 2006. The 2006 financial data confirmed that, as was the case in previous years, the CGIAR as a whole was in a strong financial position. Cash and cash-equivalent balances totaled $288 million at the end of 2006 (2005: $260 million). This figure includes $32 million in cash investments disclosed under non-current assets ($38 million in 2005). At the end of 2006, $56 million, equivalent to 13% of the total funding or approximately 2 months of funding, was outstanding as accounts receivable from Members. Net property, plant and equipment amounts to $78 million, which is the same as in 2005. Total net assets at the end of the year were $226 million (2005: $238 million). These assets were made up of $145 million (2005: $158 million) in unrestricted net assets excluding investments in fixed assets, $78 million in investments in fixed assets ( same with 2005) and $3 million in restricted net assets (2005: $2 million). Investments in fixed assets (Table A4.2) totaled $16.8 million in 2006 against $15.8 million in 2005. 19 Table4.CGIAR System FinancialPosition (thousands of USdollars) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Assets Current assets Cashandcashequivalents 149,076 201,662 237,047 221,853 255,899 Accounts receivable Members 72,864 87,768 69,717 83,907 56,363 Employees 3,078 2,797 3,594 4,105 4,726 Others 14,864 14,527 17,147 22,280 20,952 Inventories 4,447 4,165 4,540 4,593 6,001 Pre-paidexpenses 3,673 3,262 2,994 3,401 3,140 Other currentassets 3,327 4,567 16,924 6,580 943 Totalcurrent assets 251,329 318,748 351,963 346,719 348,024 Non-current assets Netproperty,plant,andequipment 77,172 79,585 78,433 77,869 78,277 Investments 41,828 37,838 34,985 46,642 41,020 Others assets 3,012 1,223 7,076 Totalnon-current assets 119,000 117,423 116,430 125,734 126,373 Totalassets 370,329 436,172 468,393 472,453 474,397 Liabilities and net assets Current liabilities Accounts payable Members 78,749 110,925 115,904 119,497 112,065 Employees 11,877 13,805 12,435 14,514 19,024 Others 34,177 47,181 49,216 44,430 49,254 Accruals andprovisions 42,377 28,925 24,294 24,086 25,938 Totalcurrent liabilities 167,180 200,836 201,849 202,527 206,281 Long-term liabilities 27,906 25,876 30,486 31,897 42,383 Totalliabilities 195,086 226,712 232,335 234,424 248,664 Net assets Unrestricted Unrestrictednetassets excl fixedassets 96,039 126,820 155,539 157,966 145,089 Fixedassets 77,172 79,585 78,433 77,869 78,277 Unrestricted net assets 173,211 206,405 233,972 235,835 223,365 Restricted 2,032 3,054 2,086 2,194 2,368 Totalnet assets 175,243 209,459 236,058 238,029 225,733 Totalliabilitiesand netassets 370,329 436,172 468,393 472,453 474,397 20 Net Assets Net assets are the residual interest in an entity's assets after the liabilities have been deducted. Hence, net assets in not-for-profit organizations are equivalent to "shareholder's equity" in for-profit organizations. In the CGIAR, net assets arise mainly from the annual surplus of unrestricted funding over unrestricted expenditure. In exceptional cases, they could arise from technical reasons (such as the recognition of certain revenue and expense items directly into net assets and changes in accounting policies). In 2006, total net assets decreased by $12 million, the result of an increase of $14 million in total liabilities partially offset by an increase of $2 million in total assets. The level of net assets for each Center is shown in Figure 12. Figure 12. Net Assets byCenter, 2006 (millions of US dollars) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 IRRI ILRI IITA CIMMYT ICRISAT World ICARDA CIAT IFPRI CIP WorldFish Biov e rsity CIFOR IWMI Africa Rice Agrofore stry Unrestricted Net Assets As explained above, net assets in the CGIAR are mainly of the unrestricted category. Unrestricted net assets excluding net fixed assets indicate the financial capacity of an organization to adjust to unplanned changes in revenue or expenditure. At the Center level, unrestricted net assets excluding net fixed assets decreased by $13 million; from $158 million in 2005 to $145 million in 2006. When expressed in terms of percentage of revenue, it slightly decreased to 32% from the 34% of 2004 and 2005. Figure 13 indicates the total of unrestricted net assets excluding net fixed assets by Center. 21 Figure 13. Unrestricted Net Assets excluding Net Fixed Assets byCenter, 2006 (millions of US dollars) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 IRRI IITA ILRI ICRISAT IFPRI ICARDA WorldFish CIMMYT World CIFOR Biov e rsity CIP IWMI Africa Rice CIAT Agrofore stry Restricted Net Assets Restricted net assets rarely arise in the CGIAR's normal course of business because the recognition of restricted funding revenue is always based on the extent of restricted expenditure. However, there is an exceptional case where a permanent endowment, of which only the income generated could be spent, was provided to a Center. In this case the endowment became a permanently restricted net asset. Net Fixed Assets Capital invested in fixed assets forms part of designated net assets in the CGIAR.10 This remained at the same level of $78 million in since 2004. The CGIAR's annual capital investment indicates a stable pattern. In 2006, capital expenditure totaled $16.8 million; annual depreciation charge totaled $16 million. Annex Table A4.2 indicates capital expenditure by Center for the period 2002-2006. Figure 14 illustrates the 2006 year-end levels of net fixed assets for all the Centers. Physical research facilities of Centers need to be kept at international standards suitable for cutting edge research. Adequate resources should be allocated for their maintenance and upkeep. Figure14. NetFixed Assets byCenter,2006 (millions of US dollars) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CIMMYT ILRI IRRI CIAT IITA World ICRISAT CIP ICARDA IWMI Bioversity CIFOR AfricaRice IFPRI WorldFish Agroforestry 10 In the revised accounting guidelines (March 2004) unrestricted net assets are further divided into undesignated and designated net assets. 22 Liquidity Liquidity represents an organization's ability to meet its short-term spending requirements. Two primary indicators of liquidity are "current ratio" and "working capital". Current ratio is current assets divided by current liabilities, represented as a number. This liquidity measure is comparable across organizations, regardless of the size, because it is a relative figure. Working capital expressed in terms of future spending requirements is useful for such purposes. The Centers' liquidity hinges on Members' disbursement pattern, which occur throughout the entire calendar year. With few exceptions, Members' progress in making disbursements in the earlier months of the year has not been encouraging. At the end of 2006, about 13% of the value of 2006 funding was outstanding as accounts receivable from Members. Figure 15 shows these by Centers as a percentage of their funding. Figure 15. Member Receivables byCenter, 2006 As a percentage of funding 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Africa Rice World ICARDA CIFOR IFPRI WorldFish Biov e rsity CIAT ILRI IRRI CIMMYT IWMI ICRISAT CIP IITA CGIAR Agrofore stry Current Ratio The system level current ratio is 1.8 which is marginally at the same level since 2002. The CGIAR's average current ratio is within the normative range. As a general rule, a current ratio above 1.5 is considered adequate. Figure 16 shows the evolution of the CGIAR current ratio from 2002. At the end of 2006, two Centers had a current ratio below 1.5 as shown in Figure 17. Figure 16. CGIAR System Current Ratio 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 23 Figure 17. Current Ratio byCenter, 2006 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 IRRI CIFOR WorldFish ILRI ICRISAT World IITA IWMI ICARDA Africa Rice Biov e rsity CIP IFPRI CIMMYT CIAT CGIAR Agrofore stry Av e rage Liquidity Indicator Figure 18 compares working capital expressed as Center expenditure (excluding depreciation) requirements in days in 2006 and 2005. The 2006 system average of 149 days of expenditure is lower than the 2005 system average of 155 days. Two Centers (Africa Rice and CIMMYT) of the three Centers who were below the minimum range in 2005 have made progress. CIAT is still below the recommended benchmark. Centers should individually build their working capital through planned annual resource allocation to a minimum recommended range of 90-120 days to ensure the viability of Center operations. Figure 18. Working Capital by Center In days Target: 90-120 days 450 Target: 9 400 2006 350 2005 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 IRRI WorldFish ILRI CIFOR ICRISAT ICARDA IITA World Bioversity AfricaRice IWMI CIP IFPRI CIMMYT CIAT CGIAR Agroforestry Average Adequacy of Reserve Indicator In the context of the CGIAR, Adequacy of Reserves indicator is based on the residual of unrestricted net assets after deducting the fixed assets. Figure 19 compares the Adequacy of Reserves indicator expressed as Center expenditure (excluding depreciation) requirements in days in 2006 and 2005. The 2006 system average of 124 days of expenditure is lower than the 2005 system average of 137 days. During 2005, three Centers (CIAT, CIMMYT and IWMI) were below the minimum range. Only CIMMYT shows improvement; while, Bioversity, fell below the range. 24 Figure 19. Adequacy ofReserves by Center In days 450 400 350 Target:75-90 Days 2006 300 2005 250 200 150 100 50 0 IRRI WorldFish IITA ILRI CIFOR ICARDA ICRISAT AfricaRice CIP World IFPRI CIMMYT Bioversity IWMI CIAT CGIAR Agroforestry Average Indirect Cost Ratio This indicator (Figure 20), which is required by the accounting guidelines (FG.5) to be computed and audited annually, is the ratio of indirect costs to direct costs (indirect costs divided by direct costs) expressed as a percentage. In 2006, the CGIAR's indirect cost ratio is 20%, slightly lower than the 21% of 2005. Figure 20. IndirectCostRatio In percent 50 2006 45 2005 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 AfricaRice CIMMYT ICRISAT World ILRI IRRI WorldFish CIFOR IWMI IITA CIAT Bioversity ICARDA IFPRI CIP CGIAR Agroforestry Average 25 Cash Management on Restricted Operations This indicator is computed as restricted donors' accounts receivable divided by restricted donors' accounts payable expressed as a ratio. The desirable ratio is less than 1. Two Centers, Africa Rice and World Agroforestry were above 1. Figure 21. Cash Managementon Restricted Operation (Restricted Accounts Receivable Ratio) 2.20 2.00 2006 1.80 2005 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Africa Rice World CIFOR Bioversity IFPRI IRRI ICARDA WorldFish CIMMYT CIAT ILRI IWMI ICRISAT IITA CIP CGIAR Agroforestry Average ` 26 Table A1.1 CGIAR Funding to the Approved Research Agenda byMember Group (millionsofUSdollars) Members 1972-2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Europe Austria 23.6 0.8 1.7 2.1 2.1 30.4 Belgium 92.9 6.4 7.0 5.1 7.4 118.9 Denmark 154.3 9.1 8.2 7.4 6.7 185.7 European Commission 303.8 27.2 26.3 30.6 6.6 394.5 Finland 37.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 45.2 France 86.5 7.6 6.3 5.0 7.1 112.4 Germany 301.2 11.6 15.3 15.4 15.3 358.7 Ireland 14.2 2.6 3.4 5.0 5.0 30.1 Israel - - 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.9 Italy 109.7 4.4 7.2 7.5 4.8 133.8 Luxembourg 6.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 8.7 Netherlands 206.5 19.2 20.9 24.1 20.1 290.9 Norway 123.8 11.2 11.7 12.6 13.4 172.7 Portugal 2.1 0.0 - - - 2.1 Spain 16.9 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.1 25.5 Sweden 161.5 13.6 14.6 14.3 14.4 218.4 Switzerland 264.3 15.6 18.1 18.2 16.7 333.0 United Kingdom 270.2 26.4 35.3 44.2 44.1 420.2 Subtotal 2,175.2 160.5 181.0 196.5 168.9 2,882.0 NorthAmerica Canada 319.4 20.9 32.5 36.4 26.9 436.1 United StatesofAmerica 1,053.1 55.5 54.2 54.8 60.7 1,278.3 Subtotal 1,372.5 76.4 86.7 91.2 87.6 1,714.4 PacificRim Australia 125.5 7.3 8.8 10.6 10.1 162.3 Japan 543.9 15.0 14.4 10.9 9.1 593.3 Korea,Republicof 8.5 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.8 14.9 NewZealand 3.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.0 6.7 Subtotal 680.9 24.4 25.9 24.0 21.9 777.1 Developingcountries Bangladesh 1.0 - 0.2 - 1.2 Brazil 5.1 0.3 0.2 1.3 - 6.8 China 10.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 14.0 Colombia 19.6 2.3 1.9 0.6 0.4 24.8 Cote d'Ivoire 0.9 - - - - 0.9 Egypt,Arab Republicof 8.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 10.5 India 14.4 1.3 1.4 1.8 4.1 23.0 Indonesia 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.3 Iran,IslamicRepublicof 16.5 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 19.7 Kenya 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.9 3.7 Malaysia - - 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 Mexico 11.0 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.1 15.2 Morocco - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 Nigeria 15.1 1.5 4.6 3.2 2.5 26.9 Pakistan 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.4 Peru 2.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 4.2 Philippines 7.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 8.6 Russian Federation 0.2 - - - - 0.2 Saudi Arabia 5.0 - - - - 5.0 South Africa 3.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.5 6.6 Syria,Arab Republicof 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 3.6 Thailand 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 Turkey - - 0.0 1.1 1.0 2.2 Uganda 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.4 Subtotal 130.4 12.4 16.6 15.3 14.7 189.3 Foundations Ford Foundation 60.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 64.6 IDRC 38.9 1.9 2.9 3.2 3.9 50.8 Kellogg Foundation 4.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 5.9 RockefellerFoundation 68.1 7.8 8.5 8.7 8.4 101.4 Syngenta Foundation 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 4.6 Subtotal 173.9 11.9 13.3 14.0 14.2 227.3 Internationalandregionalorganizations ADB 35.9 6.0 5.0 4.1 3.7 54.6 AfDB 17.8 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.0 19.5 Arab Fund 18.2 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 22.6 FAO 3.5 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.7 10.0 GulfCooperation Council - - 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 IDB 171.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 172.2 IFAD 74.3 5.7 6.2 7.5 8.3 102.0 OPEC Fund 14.9 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 16.6 UNDP 157.6 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.5 161.1 UNEP 6.2 3.6 6.6 6.1 6.5 29.0 World Bank 1 845.8 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 1,045.9 Subtotal 1,345.4 69.9 72.7 72.1 74.1 1,634.2 Totalmembers 5,878.1 355.5 396.2 413.1 381.4 7,424.3 2 Non-members 114.5 25.4 40.4 36.8 44.8 261.8 Total 5,993 381 437 450 426 7,686 1Before 2002 excluded support allocated to the CGIAR Secretariat 22005 revised for correction. 27 Table A1.2 CGIAR Funding to the Approved Research Agenda byCenter (millions of US dollars) Centers 1972-2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Africa Rice 143.3 10.7 10.4 11.6 11.1 187.1 Bioversity 261.6 27.9 34.8 35.6 31.2 391.1 CIAT 653.3 32.0 36.3 40.3 36.5 798.4 CIFOR 101.1 13.6 14.8 16.7 15.7 161.9 CIMMYT 669.5 36.2 41.2 39.3 36.0 822.2 CIP 395.4 18.0 22.3 21.8 22.3 479.9 ICARDA 458.5 25.4 24.8 28.7 24.4 561.8 ICRISAT 596.9 23.2 27.7 28.4 32.3 708.5 IFPRI 250.2 26.5 32.8 38.2 37.2 384.9 IITA 609.6 36.6 42.8 41.2 45.1 775.4 ILRI 631.6 29.5 32.9 31.7 26.7 752.4 IRRI 671.4 27.3 32.4 28.5 27.7 787.2 ISNAR 143.4 8.3 5.8 - - 157.4 IWMI 103.7 22.1 23.6 23.1 20.0 192.5 World Agroforestry 198.7 27.3 29.7 30.2 29.9 315.8 WorldFish 101.2 14.5 14.3 13.3 14.8 158.1 Total 5,989.7 379.0 426.6 428.5 410.9 7,634.7 System level System Office and committees (0.1) 7.0 9.0 9.7 9.3 34.9 Advance 5.2 - - 3.9 (1.9) 7.2 1 2 Unallocated Member funding - - 0.5 3.0 0.7 4.1 Additional Challenge Program funds 1.5 1.5 Subtotal 5.1 7.0 9.5 16.6 9.6 47.7 less Inter-center activities (2.3) (5.2) (4.7) (5.4) (5.6) (23.1) Total System Level 2.8 1.9 4.8 11.2 4.0 24.6 Total funding to the agreed agenda 5,993 381 431 440 415 7,659 plus Challenge Programs Partners - - 5.3 10.2 11.3 26.8 Total CGIAR Program 5,993 381 437 450 426 7,686 1From Italy, Brazil and Morroco. 2From Mexico and Morroco. 28 TableA2.1Ranking ofFunding to theCGIARResearch Agenda (millions ofUS dollars) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Member Amount Member Amount Member Amount Member Amount Member Amount UnitedStates ofAmerica 54.9 UnitedStates ofAmerica 55.5 UnitedStates ofAmerica 54.2 UnitedStates ofAmerica 54.8 UUnitedStates ofAmerica 60.7 WorldBank 50.0 WorldBank 50.0 WorldBank 50.0 WorldBank 50.0 WorldBank 50.0 UnitedKingdom 24.8 EuropeanCommission 27.2 UnitedKingdom 35.3 UnitedKingdom 44.2 UnitedKingdom 44.1 EuropeanCommission 24.5 UnitedKingdom 26.4 Canada 32.5 Canada 36.4 Canada 26.9 Japan 17.1 Canada 20.9 EuropeanCommission 26.3 EuropeanCommission 30.6 Netherlands 20.1 Netherlands 17.0 Netherlands 19.2 Netherlands 20.9 Netherlands 24.1 Switzerland 16.7 Switzerland 16.0 Switzerland 15.6 Switzerland 18.1 Switzerland 18.2 Germany 15.3 Canada 10.7 Japan 15.0 Germany 15.3 Germany 15.4 Sweden 14.4 Sweden 10.7 Sweden 13.6 Sweden 14.6 Sweden 14.3 Norway 13.4 Germany 10.5 Germany 11.6 Japan 14.4 Norway 12.6 Australia 10.1 Norway 10.4 Norway 11.2 Norway 11.7 Japan 10.9 Japan 9.1 Denmark 10.2 Denmark 9.1 Australia 8.8 Australia 10.6 Rockefeller Foundation 8.4 France 7.8 Rockefeller Foundation 7.8 Rockefeller Foundation 8.5 Rockefeller Foundation 8.7 IFAD 8.3 Rockefeller Foundation 7.5 France 7.6 Denmark 8.2 Italy 7.5 Belgium 7.4 Australia 7.3 Australia 7.3 Italy 7.2 IFAD 7.5 France 7.1 ADB 6.5 Belgium 6.4 Belgium 7.0 Denmark 7.4 Denmark 6.7 IFAD 5.8 ADB 6.0 UNEP 6.6 UNEP 6.1 EuropeanCommission 6.6 Belgium 4.9 IFAD 5.7 France 6.3 Belgium 5.1 UNEP 6.5 Italy 4.1 Italy 4.4 IFAD 6.2 Ireland 5.0 Ireland 5.0 Colombia 2.5 UNEP 3.6 ADB 5.0 France 5.0 Italy 4.8 IDRC 2.4 Ireland 2.6 Nigeria 4.6 ADB 4.1 India 4.1 Ireland 2.1 Spain 2.3 Ireland 3.4 IDRC 3.2 IDRC 3.9 FAO 1.8 Colombia 2.3 IDRC 2.9 Nigeria 3.2 ADB 3.7 Finland 1.5 FAO 2.0 Spain 2.3 Austria 2.1 Nigeria 2.5 UNDP 1.5 IDRC 1.9 Colombia 1.9 Finland 2.0 Spain 2.1 UNEP 1.3 Finland 1.7 Finland 1.9 Spain 1.9 Austria 2.1 SyngentaFoundation 1.4 Nigeria 1.5 Austria 1.7 India 1.8 Finland 2.1 FordFoundation 1.3 India 1.3 Mexico 1.6 Korea,Republic of 1.8 Korea,Republic of 1.8 Spain 1.3 Korea,Republic of 1.2 Korea,Republic of 1.5 FAO 1.4 FAO 1.7 Korea,Republic of 1.1 Iran,Islamic Republic of 1.2 FAO 1.5 Brazil 1.3 ArabFund 1.2 India 1.0 SyngentaFdn 1.1 India 1.4 ArabFund 1.2 Mexico 1.1 ArabFund 1.0 UNDP 1.1 NewZealand 1.2 China 1.2 AfDB 1.0 China 1.0 China 1.0 ArabFund 1.2 Turkey 1.1 FordFoundation 1.0 Peru 0.9 Austria 0.8 UNDP 1.1 SouthAfrica 1.0 Turkey 1.0 Mexico 0.9 ArabFund 0.8 Iran,Islamic Republic of 1.0 FordFoundation 0.9 NewZealand 1.0 Iran,Islamic Republic of 0.9 SouthAfrica 0.8 China 1.0 UNDP 0.9 Kenya 0.9 Brazil 0.9 FordFoundation 0.8 FordFoundation 0.9 SyngentaFoundation 0.8 China 0.8 Egypt,ArabRepublic of 0.8 NewZealand 0.8 SouthAfrica 0.8 NewZealand 0.8 Syria,ArabRepublic of 0.6 SouthAfrica 0.8 Mexico 0.7 SyngentaFdn 0.8 Mexico 0.7 Luxembourg 0.5 Luxembourg 0.8 Luxembourg 0.7 Kenya 0.6 Iran,Islamic Republic of 0.7 OPECFund 0.5 NewZealand 0.7 Uganda 0.6 Luxembourg 0.6 Luxembourg 0.6 Morocco 0.5 Uganda 0.6 Egypt,ArabRepublic of 0.5 Egypt,ArabRepublic of 0.6 Colombia 0.6 SouthAfrica 0.5 Syria,ArabRepublic of 0.6 Syria,ArabRepublic of 0.5 Peru 0.6 Morocco 0.5 Egypt,ArabRepublic of 0.5 AfDB 0.6 Morocco 0.5 OPECFund 0.5 Egypt,ArabRepublic of 0.5 SyngentaFoundation 0.5 IDB 0.5 Peru 0.4 Syria,ArabRepublic of 0.5 Syria,ArabRepublic of 0.5 UNDP 0.5 KelloggFoundation 0.3 Kenya 0.3 Morocco 0.5 Israel 0.4 Israel 0.5 Portugal 0.3 IDB 0.3 Philippines 0.4 Peru 0.4 KelloggFoundation 0.4 OPECFund 0.2 Brazil 0.3 AfDB 0.4 Kenya 0.4 IDB 0.4 Indonesia 0.2 OPECFund 0.3 KelloggFoundation 0.4 KelloggFoundation 0.4 Iran,Islamic Republic of 0.4 Philippines 0.2 KelloggFoundation 0.3 IDB 0.3 OPECFund 0.4 Colombia 0.4 Austria 0.2 Philippines 0.2 Uganda 0.3 Pakistan 0.4 Philippines 0.4 Kenya 0.1 AfDB 0.2 Thailand 0.2 Philippines 0.3 GulfCooperationCouncil 0.3 Thailand 0.1 Indonesia 0.2 Pakistan 0.2 Bangladesh 0.2 Peru 0.3 Coted'Ivoire 0.0 Pakistan 0.1 Brazil 0.2 Uganda 0.2 Pakistan 0.2 Thailand 0.1 Indonesia 0.2 IDB 0.2 Malaysia 0.1 Portugal 0.0 GulfCooperationCouncil 0.1 AfDB 0.2 Thailand 0.1 Israel 0.1 GulfCooperationCouncil 0.1 Uganda 0.1 Turkey 0.0 Malaysia 0.1 Indonesia 0.1 Malaysia 0.0 Thailand 0.1 Indonesia 0.1 Non-members 24.8 Non-members 25.4 Non-members 40.4 Non-members 36.8 Non-members 44.8 357 381 437 450 426 279.2 298.3 326.0 345.7 312.0 78% 78% 75% 77% 73% 29 TableA2.2CGIARFundingbyMember,2006 (millions ofUS dollars) Unrestricted Restricted Total Europe Austria - 2.1 2.1 Belgium 2.0 5.4 7.4 Denmark 4.7 1.9 6.7 EuropeanCommission - 6.6 6.6 Finland 1.8 0.3 2.1 France 1.0 6.1 7.1 Germany 5.1 10.2 15.3 Ireland 4.8 0.2 5.0 Israel 0.5 - 0.5 Italy 2.9 1.9 4.8 Luxembourg - 0.5 0.5 Netherlands 11.8 8.4 20.1 Norway 12.8 0.6 13.4 Spain - 2.1 2.1 Sweden 8.3 6.1 14.4 Switzerland 6.2 10.5 16.7 UnitedKingdom 21.3 22.8 44.1 Subtotal 83.2 85.7 168.9 North America Canada 11.9 15.1 26.9 UnitedStates ofAmerica 23.4 37.2 60.7 Subtotal 35.3 52.3 87.6 PacificRim Australia 4.1 6.0 10.1 Japan 3.2 5.9 9.1 Korea,Republic of 0.5 1.3 1.8 NewZealand 0.6 0.4 1.0 Subtotal 8.3 13.6 21.9 Developing countries China 0.8 0.0 0.8 Colombia - 0.4 0.4 Egypt,ArabRepublic of 0.5 - 0.5 India 0.8 3.3 4.1 Indonesia 0.1 - 0.1 Iran,Islamic Republic of 0.1 0.3 0.4 Kenya - 0.9 0.9 Malaysia - 0.1 0.1 Mexico 0.2 0.9 1.1 Morocco 0.5 0.0 0.5 Nigeria 0.2 2.4 2.5 Pakistan - 0.2 0.2 Peru - 0.3 0.3 Philippines 0.2 0.2 0.4 SouthAfrica 0.2 0.3 0.5 Syria,ArabRepublic of 0.5 0.1 0.6 Thailand 0.1 - 0.1 Turkey 0.0 1.0 1.0 Uganda - 0.1 0.1 Subtotal 4.1 10.5 14.7 TotalMemberCountries 131.0 162.1 293.1 Foundations FordFoundation - 1.0 1.0 IDRC - 3.9 3.9 KelloggFoundation - 0.4 0.4 Rockefeller Foundation - 8.4 8.4 SyngentaFoundation - 0.5 0.5 Subtotal 14.2 14.2 Internationaland regionalorganizations ADB - 3.7 3.7 AfDB - 1.0 1.0 ArabFund - 1.2 1.2 FAO - 1.7 1.7 GulfCooperationCouncil - 0.3 0.3 IDB - 0.4 0.4 IFAD - 8.3 8.3 OPECFund - 0.5 0.5 UNDP - 0.5 0.5 UNEP - 6.5 6.5 WorldBank 50.0 50.0 Subtotal 50.0 24.1 74.1 TotalOrganizations 181.0 200.4 381.4 Non-members 0.0 44.8 44.8 Grand Total 181 245 426 30 Table A2.3 UnrestrictedFundingtothe AgreedResearchAgenda by MemberGroupby Center, 2006 (millions of US dollars) World CGIAR/ Members Africa Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IRRI IWMI Agroforestry WorldFish CP Partners TOTAL Europe Belgium 0.2 0.5 0.2 - - 0.2 0.3 0.2 - 0.3 - - - - - - 2.0 Denmark - 0.3 - - 0.5 0.3 0.3 - 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 - 4.7 Finland - - - 0.4 - 0.4 - 0.4 - - 0.4 - - 1.8 France 0.1 0.3 - 0.1 0.2 - 0.2 0.1 - 0.1 - - - - - 1.0 Germany 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 - 5.1 Ireland - 0.6 - - - - 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.9 - 0.5 1.1 - - 4.8 Israel - - - 0.1 - - - 0.2 - - - - 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.5 Italy - 2.6 - - - - 0.1 - 0.3 - - - - 2.9 Netherlands 0.9 1.8 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 - 11.8 Norway 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 - 12.8 Sweden 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 - 8.3 Switzerland - 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 - 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 - - 6.2 United Kingdom 0.9 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5 2.3 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 - 21.3 Subtotal 3.4 10.0 5.3 5.1 4.7 5.0 4.7 6.2 7.7 5.9 7.9 4.7 4.1 5.3 3.2 - 83.2 North America - Canada 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 - 11.9 United States of America 0.2 0.4 2.1 0.7 4.0 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.3 2.9 2.4 3.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 - 23.4 Subtotal 0.7 1.2 3.1 1.1 5.1 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.2 4.0 3.3 4.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 35.3 Pacific Rim Australia - 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 - 4.1 Japan 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 - 3.2 Korea, Republic of - 0.1 - - 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.2 - - - - 0.5 New Zealand - - 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 - 0.6 Subtotal 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.9 8.3 Developing countries Brazil - - - - - - - - - - - China - 0.1 - 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.8 Egypt, Arab Republic of - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 - 0.5 India - 0.1 - - 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.1 - 0.8 Indonesia - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 Iran, Islamic Republic of - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - 0.1 Mexico - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 0.2 Morocco - - - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - 0.5 0.5 Nigeria - - - - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - - 0.2 Philippines - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - - 0.1 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 South Africa 0.1 0.1 - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - 0.2 Syria, Arab Republic of - - - - - - 0.5 - - - - - - - 0.5 Thailand - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.1 Turkey - - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 0.0 Uganda - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Subtotal 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 4.1 International and regional organizations WorldBank (allocated) General support 1.0 2.0 2.2 1.1 2.8 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.8 2.2 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.0 26.5 Global public goods - 0.1 - - - - - 0.1 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - 0.3 Systemwide Programs 0.2 0.6 - - 0.3 0.5 0.3 - 0.1 - 0.4 - - 0.3 - 2.5 Challenge Programs - 0.3 0.9 - 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 - 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.3 6.7 Special allocation Compensation for EC funding 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.5 6.0 Special allocation 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.3 0.5 World Bank allocated 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 4.5 2.7 2.9 2.5 4.1 3.0 2.0 3.3 2.9 2.3 1.6 1.5 42.6 System Office - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Advance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1.9) (1.9) System Office and committees - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.3 9.3 Subtotal 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 4.5 2.7 2.9 2.5 4.1 3.0 2.0 3.3 2.9 2.3 1.6 8.9 50.0 Non-members 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 6.3 15.2 12.6 7.8 16.2 9.8 10.8 12.1 14.6 13.1 13.6 14.0 8.8 9.2 7.4 9.6 181 31 TableA2.4 RestrictedFundingtotheAgreedResearchAgendabyMemberGroupbyCenter,2006 (millions ofUS dollars) Africa World CGIAR/ Members Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI IITA ILRI IRRI IWMI Agroforestry WorldFish CPPartners TOTAL Europe Austria - 0.2 0.5 - - 0.3 0.1 - - 0.5 0.1 - 0.2 0.1 - - 2.1 Belgium - 1.5 1.0 0.0 - 0.2 - 0.5 - 1.7 0.6 - - - - - 5.4 Denmark - 0.0 0.1 - 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 1.9 EuropeanCommission - 1.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 - 0.1 0.7 - 2.4 0.0 0.2 - 0.3 - 0.4 6.6 Finland - 0.1 - 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.3 France - - 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 6.1 Germany 0.1 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.4 - 0.8 - 10.2 Ireland - - - - - - - - 0.1 - 0.1 - - - - - 0.2 Italy - 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 - - 0.1 - 0.3 1.9 Luxembourg - 0.2 - - - 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - 0.5 Netherlands 0.5 1.7 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 1.3 1.5 - 0.6 8.4 Norway - 0.1 - - - - - 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - 0.6 Spain - 0.1 - 0.6 0.4 0.4 - - - - 0.3 - - 0.3 - - 2.1 Sweden - 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 3.2 0.3 0.1 6.1 Switzerland - 0.7 1.6 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.9 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.5 10.5 UnitedKingdom - 0.6 2.2 0.5 2.6 1.0 2.2 1.4 0.7 0.6 1.1 1.7 1.0 0.4 2.3 4.4 22.8 Subtotal 0.6 7.4 7.5 4.4 5.5 4.8 3.5 4.7 3.9 8.4 4.4 5.9 7.5 6.4 3.8 7.0 85.7 North America Canada 0.8 1.2 4.0 0.1 1.6 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.2 1.9 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 - 15.1 UnitedStates ofAmerica 0.7 0.1 1.9 0.3 2.2 1.8 2.0 3.7 7.7 10.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 3.1 0.6 0.7 37.2 Subtotal 1.5 1.3 6.0 0.4 3.9 3.6 2.2 3.7 8.2 11.7 2.6 0.9 0.5 4.7 0.7 0.7 52.3 PacificRim Australia - 0.9 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 - 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 - 6.0 Japan 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.3 - 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 - 5.9 Korea,Republic of - 0.2 - 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 - - 0.0 0.1 0.7 - - - - 1.3 NewZealand - 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - 0.0 0.2 - 0.4 Subtotal 0.9 1.4 0.4 0.4 3.3 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 2.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 - 13.6 Developing countries Colombia - - 0.2 - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 India - - - - 0.3 - 0.1 2.0 - - 0.0 0.5 0.4 - - - 3.3 Iran,Islamic Republic of - - - - 0.1 - 0.1 0.0 - - - 0.1 0.1 - - - 0.3 Kenya - - - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 - - 0.0 - - 0.9 Malaysia - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.0 - 0.1 Mexico - 0.0 0.3 - 0.6 - - - - - - 0.0 - - - - 0.9 Morocco - 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0 Nigeria - - - - - - - - - 2.4 - - - - - - 2.4 Pakistan - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 Peru - 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 0.1 - - 0.0 - - - - 0.1 - - 0.3 Philippines - 0.1 - - - - - 0.0 - - - 0.1 - - 0.0 - 0.2 SouthAfrica - - - - 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - 0.2 - - - 0.3 Syria,ArabRepublic of - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - 0.1 Turkey - - - - 0.2 - 0.2 - 0.6 - - - - - - - 1.0 Uganda - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0 - - 0.1 Subtotal - 0.3 0.5 - 1.4 0.1 0.7 2.1 0.8 2.8 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 - 10.5 Foundations FordFoundation - 0.0 - 0.4 - - - - 0.2 - - - - 0.4 0.0 - 1.0 IDRC - 0.5 0.8 0.4 - 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 - 0.1 - 0.3 0.7 - - 3.9 KelloggFoundation - - 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 Rockefeller Foundation 0.4 0.3 2.0 - 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.7 - 0.4 - 0.8 8.4 SyngentaFoundation - 0.0 - - 0.4 - - 0.0 0.0 - - - - 0.0 - - 0.5 Subtotal 0.4 0.8 3.1 0.7 2.1 0.6 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.8 14.2 Internationaland regionalorganizations ADB - - 0.2 0.1 0.2 - 0.3 0.1 0.2 - 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.0 1.2 - 3.7 AfDB 0.7 - - - - - - - - - 0.4 - (0.1) 0.0 - - 1.0 ArabFund - - - - - - 1.2 - - - - - - - - - 1.2 FAO - 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 1.7 GulfCooperationCouncil - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - - - - - - 0.3 IDB - 0.1 0.1 - 0.0 - - - 0.2 - - - - - - - 0.4 IFAD 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 - 1.0 0.2 - 8.3 OPECFund - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.5 UNDP 0.3 0.1 - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.5 UNEP - 1.6 0.4 0.3 - - 0.1 3.4 0.0 - - - 0.1 0.5 0.2 - 6.5 Subtotal 1.2 2.7 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.5 4.0 4.6 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 0.6 1.5 1.6 - 24.1 Inter-Center activities - 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.7 - 0.1 0.4 0.0 - 5.6 Subtotal - 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.7 - 0.1 0.4 0.0 - 5.6 TotalrestrictedMembers 4.6 13.9 19.3 6.7 17.3 10.4 12.6 16.7 17.1 24.9 9.8 12.6 10.0 15.0 6.7 8.5 206.0 TotalNon-members 0.3 2.1 4.7 1.2 2.4 2.2 1.0 3.6 5.5 7.2 3.3 1.1 1.2 5.7 0.7 2.8 44.8 Total funding atCenterlevel 4.9 16.1 23.9 7.9 19.8 12.6 13.5 20.3 22.6 32.0 13.1 13.6 11.2 20.7 7.4 11.3 250.8 less Inter-Center activities - (0.0) (0.5) (0.0) (0.1) (0.6) (0.8) (0.3) (1.5) (0.4) (0.7) - (0.1) (0.4) (0.0) - (5.6) Total 4.9 16.1 23.4 7.8 19.7 12.0 12.7 19.9 21.1 31.6 12.4 13.6 11.1 20.3 7.4 11.3 245 32 TableA2.5MemberFunding Disbursed Through theWorld Bank (millions ofUSdollars) 2005Disbursements 2006Disbursements Members Nat'lCurrency in US$ Month Nat'lCurrency in US$ Month Austria EUR 1.8 2.2 October EUR 1.8 2.8 June Belgium EUR 5.0 6.5 May,2006 EUR 5.0 6.5 August Canada 1 CAD 13.7 11.0 November CAD 17.8 16.3 October China 0.8 March,2006 0.8 December EuropeanCommission EUR 22.5 27.1 March,2006 Finland EUR 1.3 1.6 February,2006 EUR 1.4 1.8 August France EUR 1.5 1.8 March,2006 EUR 1.5 1.9 June Israel 0.5 February,2006 0.5 February,2007 Italy EUR 4.5 5.8 June,2006 Japan JPY 8.5 0.2 February,2006 Morocco 0.5 March,2007 New Zealand NZ 0.9 0.6 February,2006 NZ 0.9 0.6 August Sweden SEK 29.5 4.5 January SEK Switzerland 0.02 March 0.09 August Thailand 0.1 September Turkey 0.5 August,2006 UnitedStates ofAmerica 2 45.9 Quarterly 48.3 Quarterly Total 109.3 79.6 1 2005 includes Linkage Fund funding (CAD 450,000) 2 2005 includes grants for strengthening African Networks/Food Security ($13.2 million), and for Natural Resource Management ($6.8m). 33 Table A2.6 -CGIARFundingOutcomesbyCenter,2006 (millions ofUS dollars) 2006 Fundingin 2006fundingin Unrestricted Total Percentovertotalfunding Requirements 1 relationto relationto2005 Centers WorldBank Members Total Restricted Unrestricted Restricted financingplan funding AfricaRice 12.1 1.3 5.0 6.3 4.9 11.1 56% 44% 92% 96% Bioversity 37.9 3.3 11.8 15.2 16.1 31.2 49% 51% 82% 88% CIAT 36.3 3.5 9.1 12.6 23.9 36.5 34% 66% 101% 91% CIFOR 16.5 1.3 6.6 7.8 7.9 15.7 50% 50% 95% 94% CIMMYT 30.5 4.5 11.7 16.2 19.8 36.0 45% 55% 118% 92% CIP 23.1 2.7 7.1 9.8 12.6 22.3 44% 56% 97% 103% ICARDA 23.2 2.9 8.0 10.8 13.5 24.4 44% 56% 105% 85% ICRISAT 29.8 2.5 9.6 12.1 20.3 32.3 37% 63% 109% 114% IFPRI 32.5 4.1 10.5 14.6 22.6 37.2 39% 61% 114% 97% IITA 45.5 3.0 10.1 13.1 32.0 45.1 29% 71% 99% 109% ILRI 32.2 2.0 11.6 13.6 13.1 26.7 51% 49% 83% 84% IRRI 32.6 3.3 10.8 14.0 13.6 27.7 51% 49% 85% 97% IWMI 23.6 2.9 5.9 8.8 11.2 20.0 44% 56% 85% 87% WorldAgroforestry 30.9 2.3 6.9 9.2 20.7 29.9 31% 69% 97% 99% WorldFish 15.1 1.6 5.8 7.4 7.4 14.8 50% 50% 98% 111% Subtotal 422 41 130 171 240 411 42% 58% 97% System level System Officeandcommittees 9.3 9.3 9.3 Advance (1.9) (1.9) (1.9) UnallocatedMember funding 0.7 0.7 AdditionalChallengeProgram funds 1.5 1.5 1.5 Subtotalfunding - 9 - 10 - 10 100% 0% less Inter-center activities (5.6) (5.6) SubtotalSystem Level - 8.9 - 9.6 (5.6) 4.0 Total 422 50 130 181 234 415 44% 56% 98% plus ChallengePrograms Partners 30.0 11.3 11.3 TotalCGIARProgram 452 50 130 181 245 426 42% 58% 94% 95% 1Source: CGIARInvestment&FinancingHighlights2006-2008 34 TableA2.7World BankFunding byCenter,2002-2006 (millions ofUS dollars) 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005 Specialallocation Global 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 General public Systemwide Chalenge Compen- Total support Special goods Program Program sationforEC funding allocation AfricaRice 1.2 2.5 1.1 1.2 1.0 - 0.2 - 0.1 0.0 1.3 13% 23% 11% 10% 12% Bioversity Int'l 2.9 2.5 2.4 3.3 2.0 0.1 0.6 0.4 - 3.1 11% 9% 7% 9% 10% CIAT 3.6 4.1 3.7 2.2 2.2 - - 0.4 - 2.6 11% 13% 10% 6% 7% CIFOR 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.1 - - 0.2 - 1.3 12% 9% 8% 5% 8% CIMMYT 3.6 4.0 6.3 5.8 2.8 - 0.3 0.4 - 3.5 10% 11% 15% 15% 10% CIP 2.0 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 - 0.5 0.2 - 2.2 11% 12% 6% 6% 10% ICARDA 2.5 2.9 1.6 2.0 2.0 - 0.3 0.3 - 2.6 11% 12% 6% 7% 11% ICRISAT 2.4 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 0.1 - 0.3 - 2.0 12% 9% 7% 7% 6% IFPRI 2.5 4.3 3.8 4.1 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 - 3.3 11% 16% 12% 11% 9% IITA 3.6 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.2 - - 0.5 - 2.7 11% 8% 6% 6% 6% ILRI 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.6 1.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 2.0 10% 10% 7% 8% 8% IRRI 3.9 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 - - 0.4 - 2.1 13% 8% 5% 6% 7% ISNAR 0.9 0.8 3.5 - - 11% 9% 61% IWMI 2.3 4.9 4.4 3.9 1.6 0.1 - 0.2 0.3 2.1 11% 22% 19% 17% 10% WorldAgroforestry 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.7 - 0.3 0.3 - 2.3 10% 8% 7% 7% 8% WorldFish 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 - - 0.2 0.3 1.4 10% 10% 8% 8% 9% Subtotal 38.9 43.0 41.0 36.4 26.5 0.3 2.5 - 4.5 0.5 34.4 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% System level System OficeandCommitees 6.0 7.0 9.0 9.7 9.3 9.3 Subtotal 44.8 50.0 50.0 46.1 35.8 0.3 2.5 0.0 4.5 0.5 43.7 14% 13% 11% 10% 10% ChallengePrograms 6.7 1.5 8.2 Advance 5.2 - 3.9 1.1 (3.0) (1.9) Total 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 35.8 1.4 2.5 6.7 6.0 (2.5) 50.0 14% 10% 11% 11% 12% 35 Table A3.1 CGIAR Expenditure by Center (millions of US dollars) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Africa Rice 9.8 10.1 10.1 10.9 11.2 Bioversity 25.7 28.3 32.0 34.6 34.6 CIAT 32.6 32.9 36.7 42.4 41.8 CIFOR 11.7 13.6 15.1 17.5 16.5 CIMMYT 41.5 37.5 41.1 38.8 37.4 CIP 19.3 17.6 21.5 22.0 22.9 ICARDA 24.3 26.2 24.6 29.1 27.0 ICRISAT 24.8 24.0 26.8 28.4 34.0 IFPRI 23.5 26.5 31.4 39.7 39.1 IITA 32.7 37.7 42.6 40.2 44.4 ILRI 28.8 31.0 31.7 32.2 34.8 IRRI 33.6 28.8 32.9 33.4 33.3 ISNAR 8.9 12.8 2.4 IWMI 20.8 23.0 23.1 23.1 20.6 World Agroforestry 21.9 27.4 28.5 30.0 31.9 WorldFish 12.3 15.5 14.1 15.2 15.5 Agreed agenda 372 393 415 438 445 System level System Office and committees 11.2 7.0 9.0 9.9 7.4 less Inter-Center activities (2.3) (5.2) (4.7) (5.4) (5.6) Subtotal System Level 8.9 1.8 4.3 4.5 1.8 Total 381 395 419 442 447 plus Challenge Programs Partners 5.3 10.2 11.3 Total CGIAR Program 381 395 425 452 458 36 Table A3.2 Centers' Research Agenda Expenditure by Region, 2006 (millions of US dollars and percentages) Expenditure SubSaharan Asia Latin America CWANA $ % $ % $ % $ % $ Africa Rice 11.2 100% 11.2 0.0 Bioversity 34.6 34% 11.8 29% 10.0 21% 7.3 16% 5.5 CIAT 41.8 36% 15.0 15% 6.3 48% 20.0 1% 0.4 CIFOR 16.5 32% 5.3 43% 7.1 25% 4.1 0.0 CIMMYT 37.4 34% 12.7 29% 10.8 23% 8.6 14% 5.2 CIP 22.9 34% 7.8 18% 4.1 47% 10.8 1% 0.2 ICARDA 27.0 13% 3.5 6% 1.6 3% 0.8 78% 21.0 ICRISAT 34.0 59% 20.1 41% 13.9 - 0.0 IFPRI 39.1 50% 19.5 33% 12.9 13% 5.1 4% 1.6 IITA 44.4 99% 44.0 0% 0.1 0% 0.1 0% 0.1 ILRI 34.8 65% 22.6 24% 8.4 6% 2.1 5% 1.7 IRRI 33.3 5% 1.7 89% 29.6 2% 0.7 4% 1.3 IWMI 20.6 38% 7.8 43% 8.9 11% 2.3 8% 1.6 World Agroforestry 31.9 74% 23.6 22% 7.0 4% 1.3 0.0 WorldFish 15.5 20% 3.1 66% 10.3 14% 2.2 Subtotal 445 48% 210 29% 131 14% 63 9% 41 System level Systems Office and committees 7.4 less Inter-Center activities (5.6) Subtotal 2 Total 447 plus Challenge Programs Partners 11.3 Total CGIAR Program 458 37 Table A3.3 Centers' Research Agenda Expenditure by Object, 2006 (millions of US dollars) Total Personnel Supplies Collaboration Travel Depreciation Africa Rice 11.2 5.2 3.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 Bioversity 34.6 18.8 8.2 5.4 1.8 0.5 CIAT 41.8 21.9 10.5 4.4 3.6 1.4 CIFOR 16.5 8.1 2.2 4.8 1.0 0.4 CIMMYT 37.4 16.6 12.1 5.6 2.0 1.0 CIP 22.9 10.6 6.0 3.7 1.8 0.9 ICARDA 27.0 11.3 8.4 2.8 2.8 1.6 ICRISAT 34.0 15.9 10.6 4.0 2.8 0.7 IFPRI 39.1 17.6 8.4 9.4 3.0 0.7 IITA 44.4 18.0 15.7 6.4 3.1 1.3 ILRI 34.8 16.9 10.9 2.2 2.2 2.6 IRRI 33.3 14.4 10.4 3.8 2.7 2.0 IWMI 20.6 12.5 1.3 2.8 3.6 0.5 World Agroforestry 31.9 13.9 9.9 3.4 3.9 0.9 WorldFish 15.5 7.7 3.3 2.6 1.6 0.3 Subtotal 445 209 121 62 37 16 System level System Office and committees 7.4 less Inter-Center activities (5.6) Subtotal 2 Total 447 plus Challenge Programs Partners 11.3 Total CGIAR Program 458 Total Personnel Supplies Collaboration Travel Depreciation Africa Rice 11.2 47% 34% 6% 5% 8% Bioversity 34.6 54% 24% 16% 5% 1% CIAT 41.8 52% 25% 11% 9% 3% CIFOR 16.5 49% 13% 29% 6% 3% CIMMYT 37.4 44% 33% 15% 5% 3% CIP 22.9 46% 26% 16% 8% 4% ICARDA 27.0 42% 31% 11% 10% 6% ICRISAT 34.0 47% 31% 12% 8% 2% IFPRI 39.1 45% 21% 24% 8% 2% IITA 44.4 40% 35% 15% 7% 3% ILRI 34.8 49% 31% 6% 6% 8% IRRI 33.3 43% 31% 12% 8% 6% IWMI 20.6 61% 6% 13% 17% 2% World Agroforestry 31.9 43% 31% 11% 12% 3% WorldFish 15.5 50% 21% 17% 10% 2% Total Center Level 445 47% 27% 14% 8% 4% 38 Table A3.4 Centers' Staffing 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 International Other International Other International Other International Other International Other Africa Rice 30 285 34 198 39 125 40 136 49 151 Bioversity 45 175 45 181 52 194 69 188 69 179 CIAT 102 615 106 625 106 625 109 656 96 640 CIFOR 42 110 51 126 40 139 38 142 41 137 CIMMYT 110 681 100 649 95 537 85 480 83 437 CIP 51 405 52 405 55 456 56 440 60 493 ICARDA 109 408 116 407 106 364 105 385 104 397 ICRISAT 60 856 49 876 54 880 56 870 59 873 IFPRI 66 97 67 90 76 117 90 121 89 121 IITA 96 859 98 863 102 912 106 994 107 1,128 ILRI 73 630 70 661 92 628 74 626 81 693 IRRI 78 730 72 783 70 810 72 812 73 832 ISNAR 37 45 25 32 IWMI 81 271 93 272 92 251 110 261 115 259 World Agroforestry 50 276 52 402 51 406 46 401 45 421 WorldFish 30 256 35 267 33 284 44 262 44 278 Total 1,060 6,699 1,065 6,837 1,063 6,728 1,100 6,774 1,115 7,039 39 Table A4.1 Centers'FinancialPosition,December 31,2006 (thousandsofUSdollars) Africa World Rice Bioversity CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRISAT IFPRI ITA ILRI IRRI IWMI Agroforestry WorldFish TOTAL Assets Currentassets Cash and cash equivalents 2,461 20,350 18,514 9,171 23,645 13,990 17,705 22,693 17,953 34,120 23,344 19,689 9,078 13,268 9,918 255,899 Accountsreceivable Members 3,149 4,880 5,244 2,682 4,711 1,310 4,492 2,596 6,171 1,923 3,704 3,788 2,318 7,038 2,357 56,363 Employees 172 366 180 67 1,030 305 - 1,129 565 122 532 94 164 4,726 Others 283 783 2,949 848 1,073 271 1,827 1,902 1,314 6 1,787 1,572 1,927 3,187 1,223 20,952 Inventories 339 430 437 396 489 566 - 1,803 849 555 49 88 - 6,001 Prepaid expenses 281 249 97 345 55 144 605 303 - 328 405 179 116 33 - 3,140 Othercurentassets - - - - - 148 - - 549 150 - - - - 96 943 Totalcurrentassets 6,686 26,262 27,600 13,226 29,921 16,326 26,148 28,365 25,987 39,459 30,654 25,905 14,020 23,708 13,758 348,024 Non-currentassets Netproperty,plantand equipment 1,101 1,890 9,525 1,556 14,991 3,711 3,446 5,075 954 6,679 10,471 9,883 2,516 5,993 486 78,277 Investments - - - - - 337 - 9,620 5,509 - 1,816 23,738 - - 41,020 Otherassets - 40 6 64 - - 5,793 1,005 - - 11 6 - - 151 7,076 Totalnon-currentassets 1,101 1,930 9,531 1,620 14,991 4,048 9,239 15,700 6,463 6,679 12,298 33,627 2,516 5,993 637 126,373 Totalassets 7,787 28,192 37,131 14,846 44,912 20,374 35,387 44,065 32,450 46,138 42,952 59,532 16,536 29,701 14,395 474,397 Liabilities and netassets Curentliabilities Accountspayable Members 1,394 6,711 16,251 3,737 9,377 6,118 7,018 8,304 17,158 8,542 8,729 5,652 3,835 6,588 2,653 112,065 In-trustAccounts Employees 396 1,169 776 - 1,390 72 781 1,082 1,282 10,088 1,354 - 110 524 - 19,024 Others 908 7,323 6,541 52 9,103 4,598 1,950 4,988 - 1,850 1,430 3,190 3,600 1,935 1,786 49,254 Accrualsand provisions 1,124 1,263 304 897 1,152 47 4,689 478 3,095 294 1,751 7,227 132 2,663 822 25,938 Totalcurrentliabilities 3,822 16,466 23,872 4,686 21,022 10,835 14,438 14,852 21,535 20,774 13,264 16,069 7,676 11,710 5,261 206,281 Long-term liabilities Long-term loan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Others - 3,557 1,918 1,999 1,327 448 9,242 11,300 1,583 - 3,167 - 2,302 4,988 552 42,383 Totallong-term liabilities - 3,557 1,918 1,999 1,327 448 9,242 11,300 1,583 - 3,167 - 2,302 4,988 552 42,383 Totalliabilities 3,822 20,023 25,790 6,685 22,349 11,283 23,680 26,152 23,118 20,774 16,431 16,069 9,978 16,698 5,813 248,664 Netassets Unrestricted Unrestricted netassetsexcluding fixed assets 2,864 6,279 1,816 6,605 7,572 5,380 8,261 10,470 8,378 18,685 16,050 33,580 4,042 7,010 8,096 145,088 Fixed assets 1,101 1,890 9,525 1,556 14,991 3,711 3,446 5,075 954 6,679 10,471 9,883 2,516 5,993 486 78,277 Unrestricted netassets 3,964 8,169 11,341 8,161 22,563 9,091 11,707 15,545 9,332 25,364 26,521 43,463 6,558 13,003 8,582 223,365 Restricted - - - - - - - 2,368 - - - - - - - 2,368 Totalnetassets 3,964 8,169 11,341 8,161 22,563 9,091 11,707 17,913 9,332 25,364 26,521 43,463 6,558 13,003 8,582 225,733 Totalliabilities and netassets 7,787 28,192 37,131 14,846 44,912 20,374 35,387 44,065 32,450 46,138 42,952 59,532 16,536 29,701 14,395 474,397 40 Table A4.2 Capital Investments by Center (millions of US dollars) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Africa Rice 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7 Bioversity 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 CIAT 1.7 1.3 2.3 2.5 1.9 CIFOR 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 CIMMYT 1.4 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.0 CIP 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 2.0 ICARDA 1.0 0.3 0.7 1.3 0.9 ICRISAT 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 IFPRI 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.2 IITA 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.0 ILRI 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 IRRI 1.1 1.8 3.0 1.6 3.5 ISNAR 0.1 - - - - IWMI 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.9 World Agroforestry 0.3 0.4 1.2 1.1 0.6 WorldFish 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 Total 9.3 9.7 15.5 15.8 16.8 41 Table A5.1 - CGIAR Expenditure 1 (millions of US dollars and percentages) 1972-2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % Center Africa Rice 191 3% 10 3% 10 2% 11 2% 11 3% 233 3% Bioversity 281 4% 28 7% 32 8% 35 8% 35 8% 411 5% CIAT 740 11% 33 8% 37 9% 42 10% 42 9% 893 10% CIFOR 97 1% 14 4% 15 4% 18 4% 16 4% 160 2% CIMMYT 777 11% 38 10% 41 10% 39 9% 37 8% 932 11% CIP 453 6% 18 5% 21 5% 22 5% 23 5% 537 6% ICARDA 525 7% 26 7% 25 6% 29 7% 27 6% 632 7% ICRISAT 698 10% 24 6% 27 6% 28 7% 34 8% 811 9% IFPRI 281 4% 26 7% 32 8% 40 9% 39 9% 418 5% IITA 828 12% 38 10% 43 10% 40 9% 44 10% 993 11% ILRI 683 10% 31 8% 32 8% 32 7% 35 8% 813 9% IRRI 855 12% 29 7% 33 8% 34 8% 33 7% 984 11% ISNAR 178 3% 13 3% 2 1% 0 193 2% IWMI 115 2% 23 6% 23 6% 23 5% 21 5% 205 2% World Agroforestry 208 3% 27 7% 28 7% 30 7% 32 7% 325 4% WorldFish 102 1% 16 4% 14 3% 15 3% 16 3% 163 2% Total 7,012 100% 393 100% 415 100% 438 100% 445 100% 8,703 100% Sector/Commodity Cereals 2,356 54% 112 34% 123 34% 126 31% 127 31% 2,844 39% Rice 1,243 53% 46 14% 51 14% 51 13% 51 13% 1,442 20% Wheat 582 25% 25 8% 27 7% 25 6% 24 6% 683 9% Maize 531 22% 41 12% 45 13% 50 12% 52 13% 718 10% Legumes 948 22% 38 11% 41 12% 41 10% 42 10% 1,109 15% Roots and tubers 936 21% 50 15% 57 16% 57 14% 61 15% 1,161 15% Bananas/plantains 150 3% 29 9% 32 9% 33 8% 34 8% 278 4% Production sectors 4,390 75% 229 69% 253 71% 257 95% 264 65% 5,393 73% Livestock 1,046 18% 42 13% 43 12% 45 11% 48 12% 1,224 17% Trees 313 5% 44 13% 47 13% 57 14% 58 14% 519 7% Water 0 0% 23 6% 21 5% 44 1% Fish 106 2% 16 5% 15 4% 16 4% 16 4% 168 2% Total 5,855 100% 331 100% 358 100% 398 100% 406 100% 7,348 100% Region Sub-Saharan Africa 2,935 42% 179 45% 195 47% 201 46% 210 48% 3,720 43% Asia 2,153 31% 124 32% 132 32% 131 30% 131 29% 2,671 30% Latin America & the Carribean 1,134 16% 54 14% 52 12% 63 14% 63 14% 1,366 16% Central and West Asia & North Africa 790 11% 36 9% 36 9% 43 10% 41 9% 946 11% Total 7,012 100% 393 100% 415 100% 438 100% 445 100% 8,703 100% Object Personnel 3,671 52% 181 46% 186 45% 197 45% 209 47% 4,445 51% Supplies & services 2,306 33% 122 31% 120 29% 118 27% 122 27% 2,788 32% Collaboration & partnerships 0 47 12% 58 14% 70 16% 62 14% 236 3% Travel 481 7% 28 7% 34 8% 35 8% 37 8% 615 7% Depreciation 554 8% 16 4% 17 4% 18 4% 16 4% 620 7% Total 7,012 100% 394 100% 415 100% 438 100% 445 101% 8,705 100% 1 This data is aggregated at the Center level. 42 Table 6.1 CGIAR Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 357 381 437 450 426 (of which unrestricted) 44% 44% 45% 43% 42% Earned income 14.0 17.2 16.1 10.3 22.4 Total 371 398 453 460 448 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 147 161 181 197 169 North America 65 76 87 91 88 Pacific Rim 26 24 26 24 22 Developingcountries 12 12 17 15 14 Foundations 13 12 13 14 14 International and regional organizations 69 70 73 72 74 Subtotal 332 356 397 413 381 Non-members 25 25 40 37 45 Total 357 381 437 450 426 Top three contributors USA USA USA USA USA World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank United Kingdom E.C. United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 1,060 1,065 1,063 1,100 1,115 Support 6,699 6,837 6,728 6,774 7,039 Total 7,759 7,902 7,791 7,874 8,154 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 49% 46% 45% 45% 47% Supplies & services 40% 31% 29% 27% 27% Collaboration & partnerships 12% 14% 16% 14% Travel 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% Depreciation 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Total (millions of US dollars) 381 395 425 452 458 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 43% 45% 47% 46% 48% Asia 33% 32% 32% 30% 29% Latin America & the Caribbean 15% 14% 12% 14% 14% Central and West Asia & North Africa 9% 9% 9% 10% 9% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] (10) 3 28 8 (10) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 96.0 126.8 155.5 158.0 145.1 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 1 125 151 164 155 149 Current ratio 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 96 124 145 137 124 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 9.3 9.7 15.5 15.8 16.8 Capital expenditure / depreciation 65% 63% 90% 101% 107% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 24% 21% 20% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 2 0.55 0.80 0.46 1 2004 and 2005 restated to exclude investmentin non-marketable GovernmentofIndia bondsheld byICRISAT. 22004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 43 Table A6.2 Africa Rice Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 9.5 10.7 10.4 11.6 11.1 (of which unrestricted) 61% 70% 67% 63% 56% Earned income 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 Total revenue 10.1 11.0 10.5 11.8 11.5 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 3.9 4.2 5.0 5.0 4.0 North America 1.1 1.3 1.2 2.0 2.2 Pacific Rim 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 Developingcountries 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 Foundations 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.4 International and regional organizations 1.7 2.9 1.5 1.7 2.5 Subtotal 9.1 10.6 10.2 11.4 10.9 Non-members 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 Total 9.5 10.7 10.4 11.6 11.1 Top three contributors Japan World Bank Japan Japan Japan World Bank Japan E.C. Canada Netherlands Netherlands E.C. World Bank Netherlands World Bank Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 30 34 39 40 49 Support 285 198 125 136 151 Total 315 232 164 176 200 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 44% 49% 52% 44% 47% Supplies & services 41% 36% 29% 36% 34% Collaboration & partnerships 5% 4% 6% 6% Travel 6% 5% 7% 7% 5% Depreciation 4% 4% 8% 7% 8% Total (millions of US dollars) 9.8 10.1 10.1 10.9 11.2 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Asia 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Latin America & the Caribbean 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Central and West Asia & North Africa 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets (0.3) 0.6 1.5 2.4 2.9 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) (10) 22 58 87 102 Current ratio 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days (10) 23 58 87 102 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7 Capital expenditure / depreciation 46% 145% 42% 90% 75% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 49% 48% 28% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 0.68 0.90 2.03 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 44 Table A6.3 BioversityProgram and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 25.3 27.9 34.8 35.6 31.2 (of which unrestricted) 43% 43% 45% 46% 49% Earned income 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.4 0.9 Total 25.7 28.1 34.8 35.2 32.1 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 12.7 13.5 17.3 19.5 17.4 North America 1.6 1.9 3.1 3.3 2.5 Pacific Rim 1.3 1.7 1.6 2.1 1.7 Developingcountries 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Foundations 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 International and regional organizations 5.1 5.8 5.6 6.3 6.1 Subtotal 21.9 23.8 29.6 33.0 29.1 Non-members 3.4 3.9 4.8 2.5 2.1 Total 25.3 27.7 34.4 35.5 31.2 Top three contributors World Bank E.C. Italy World Bank Netherlands Netherlands World Bank Netherlands Italy World Bank Japan Netherlands E.C. Netherlands United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 45 45 52 69 69 Support 175 181 194 188 179 Total 220 226 246 257 248 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 41% 48% 49% 53% 54% Supplies & services 47% 26% 26% 25% 24% Collaboration & partnerships 19% 18% 16% 16% Travel 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% Depreciation 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% Total (millions of US dollars) 25.6 28.3 32.0 34.6 34.6 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 30% 30% 32% 34% 34% Asia 27% 27% 25% 29% 29% Latin America & the Caribbean 21% 21% 20% 21% 21% Central and West Asia & North Africa 21% 21% 23% 16% 16% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] 0.1 (0.3) 2.8 0.7 (2.5) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 5.2 5.0 7.9 8.6 6.3 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 107 101 124 124 104 Current ratio 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 76 67 91 92 67 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 Capital expenditure / depreciation 78% 99% 75% 98% 70% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 20% 19% 18% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 1 1.53 1.79 0.61 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 45 Table A6.4 CIAT Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 31.0 32.0 36.3 40.3 36.5 (of which unrestricted) 35% 35% 37% 28% 34% Earned income 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 Total 31.7 33.0 37.3 41.5 37.9 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 10.4 10.6 11.9 13.7 12.8 North America 6.7 6.6 8.8 11.7 9.1 Pacific Rim 2.3 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.1 Developingcountries 2.8 2.5 2.3 0.9 0.6 Foundations 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.4 3.1 International and regional organizations 5.7 6.8 6.4 5.1 4.7 Subtotal 29.3 29.5 33.2 35.1 31.3 Non-members 1.7 1.5 2.7 4.7 4.7 Total 31.0 31.0 36.0 39.8 36.0 Top three contributors World Bank USA USA Canada Canada USA World Bank Canada USA USA Japan Canada World Bank United Kingdom United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 102 106 106 109 96 Support 615 625 625 656 640 Total 717 731 731 765 736 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 41% 53% 51% 49% 52% Supplies & services 36% 27% 25% 25% 25% Collaboration & partnerships 8% 12% 14% 11% Travel 7% 8% 9% 8% 9% Depreciation 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% Total (millions of US dollars) 32.3 32.9 36.7 42.4 41.8 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 25% 33% 36% 36% 36% Asia 12% 15% 15% 15% 15% Latin America & the Caribbean 61% 52% 49% 48% 48% Central and West Asia & North Africa 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] (0.6) 0.1 0.5 (0.9) (3.9) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 2.8 5.0 6.0 5.2 1.8 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 66 75 77 61 36 Current ratio 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 33 58 63 47 18 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 1.7 1.3 2.3 2.5 1.9 Capital expenditure / depreciation 163% 114% 157% 134% 137% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 21% 20% 20% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 0.73 0.76 0.35 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 46 Table A6.5 CIFOR Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 12.4 13.6 14.8 16.7 15.7 (of which unrestricted) 35% 35% 54% 48% 50% Earned income 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 Total 12.4 13.8 15.0 17.2 16.1 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 7.0 7.7 9.0 10.9 9.6 North America 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 Pacific Rim 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.7 Developingcountries 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Foundations 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 International and regional organizations 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.2 2.0 Subtotal 11.6 12.2 13.9 15.5 14.5 Non-members 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 Total 12.4 13.6 14.7 16.5 15.7 Top three contributors World Bank E.C. Netherlands United Kingdom Netherlands E.C. Netherlands United Kingdom E.C. United Kingdom Japan United Kingdom World Bank Netherlands World Bank Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 42 51 40 38 41 Support 110 126 139 142 137 Total 152 177 179 180 178 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 51% 50% 50% 42% 49% Supplies & services 41% 15% 16% 19% 13% Collaboration & partnerships 27% 27% 30% 29% Travel 5% 6% 6% 7% 6% Depreciation 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% Total (millions of US dollars) 11.7 13.6 15.1 17.5 16.5 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 30% 30% 32% 32% 32% Asia 35% 35% 34% 43% 43% Latin America & the Caribbean 35% 35% 34% 25% 25% Central and West Asia & North Africa 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] 0.8 0.2 (0.1) (0.4) (0.3) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 6.9 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.6 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 215 197 230 191 193 Current ratio 2.1 1.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 223 197 174 144 150 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 Capital expenditure / depreciation 25% 73% 116% 86% 79% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 18% 22% 21% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 1 0.61 1.08 0.62 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 47 Table A6.6 CIMMYT Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 35.2 36.2 41.2 39.3 36.0 (of which unrestricted) 36% 41% 46% 48% 45% Earned income 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 Total 36.4 38.3 42.5 40.8 37.8 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 9.5 9.8 10.4 10.1 10.2 North America 6.9 10.0 10.4 9.1 8.9 Pacific Rim 3.3 4.2 5.1 5.3 5.0 Developingcountries 2.0 1.5 2.2 1.9 1.7 Foundations 2.4 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.1 International and regional organizations 5.2 4.8 6.9 6.7 5.5 Subtotal 29.4 33.4 38.0 35.7 33.4 Non-members 5.8 2.5 2.2 3.4 2.4 Total 35.2 35.9 40.2 39.1 35.9 Top three contributors USA USA USA World Bank USA World Bank World Bank World Bank USA World Bank E.C. E.C. E.C Canada United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 110 100 95 85 83 Support 681 649 537 480 437 Total 791 749 632 565 520 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 41% 48% 41% 46% 44% Supplies & services 41% 29% 35% 28% 33% Collaboration & partnerships 12% 14% 16% 15% Travel 4% 3% 5% 5% 5% Depreciation 3% 8% 5% 5% 3% Total (millions of US dollars) 41.3 37.5 41.1 38.8 37.4 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 38% 37% 37% 34% 34% Asia 28% 28% 28% 29% 29% Latin America & the Caribbean 25% 25% 25% 23% 23% Central and West Asia & North Africa 10% 10% 10% 14% 14% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] (4.9) 0.7 1.4 2.0 0.4 Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets (0.3) 3.1 4.9 7.2 6.6 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 3 39 54 79 94 Current ratio 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days (3) 33 50 74 80 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 1.4 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.0 Capital expenditure / depreciation 106% 16% 78% 82% 106% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 25% 22% 25% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 0.83 1.07 0.38 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 48 Table A6.7 CIP Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 18.0 18.0 22.3 21.8 22.3 (of which unrestricted) 43% 46% 42% 39% 44% Earned income 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 Total 18.5 18.4 22.6 22.1 23.0 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 10.2 10.5 13.1 11.9 9.8 North America 2.7 2.7 2.9 4.3 5.2 Pacific Rim 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.5 Developing countries 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Foundations 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 International and regional organizations 2.6 2.9 1.9 1.8 3.1 Subtotal 17.7 17.1 20.1 19.5 19.6 Non-members 0.3 0.5 2.1 1.6 2.2 Total 18.0 17.6 22.2 21.1 21.8 Top three contributors Switzerland WorldBank Switzerland USA USA USA Switzerland Spain UnitedKingdom Canada WorldBank USA UnitedKingdom Switzerland UnitedKingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 51 52 55 56 60 Support 405 405 456 440 493 Total 456 457 511 496 553 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 46% 46% 45% 42% 46% Supplies & services 42% 35% 34% 36% 26% Collaboration & partnerships 7% 10% 10% 16% Travel 9% 9% 10% 10% 8% Depreciation 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% Total (millions of US dollars) 19.1 17.6 21.5 22.0 22.9 Expenditure by region Sub-Saharan Africa 30% 41% 41% 34% 34% Asia 43% 34% 35% 18% 18% Latin America & the Caribbean 19% 14% 12% 47% 47% Central and West Asia & North Africa 9% 11% 12% 1% 1% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] (0.6) 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.1 Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excluding fixed assets 2.7 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.4 Liquidity indicators Working capital (days expenditure) 51 97 99 93 96 Current ratio 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 Adequacy of reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 52 97 95 91 89 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 2.0 Capital expenditure / depreciation 27% 79% 149% 115% 222% Efficiency of operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 14% 12% 13% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 0.91 0.88 0.13 49 Table A6.8 ICARDAProgram and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 23.1 25.4 24.8 28.7 24.4 (of which unrestricted) 37% 42% 42% 38% 44% Earned income 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.6 Total 24.3 26.2 25.3 29.6 26.0 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 7.0 8.7 10.0 11.9 8.2 North America 7.9 6.4 4.5 5.3 4.3 Pacific Rim 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.4 Developingcountries 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 Foundations 0.1 0.2 0.2 International and regional organizations 5.4 5.5 4.8 5.7 6.8 Subtotal 22.4 23.7 22.1 26.1 22.6 Non-members 0.7 1.3 2.3 1.7 1.0 Total 23.1 25.0 24.4 27.8 23.6 Top three contributors World Bank USA USA USA United Kingdom Arab Fund World Bank United Kingdom United Kingdom USA USA E.C. E.C. World Bank World Bank Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 109 116 106 105 104 Support 408 407 364 385 397 Total 517 523 470 490 501 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 41% 37% 43% 38% 42% Supplies & services 43% 40% 29% 38% 31% Collaboration & partnerships 11% 7% 10% 11% Travel 12% 10% 13% 9% 10% Depreciation 4% 3% 7% 5% 6% Total (millions of US dollars) 24.3 26.2 24.6 29.1 27.0 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 15% 15% 15% 13% 13% Asia 12% 12% 12% 6% 6% Latin America & the Caribbean 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Central and West Asia & North Africa 70% 70% 70% 78% 78% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 (1.0) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 8.6 8.8 9.4 9.2 8.3 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 174 188 205 175 167 Current ratio 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 135 127 143 121 118 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.9 0.3 0.7 1.3 0.9 Capital expenditure / depreciation 102% 35% 43% 89% 55% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 20% 18% 16% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 0.49 0.80 0.46 1 2004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 50 TableA6.9ICRISAT Programand ResourceHighlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues(millionsof US dollars) Agendafunding 19.8 23.2 27.7 28.4 32.3 (ofwhichunrestricted) 48% 41% 40% 40% 37% Earnedincome 1.0 1.4 2.3 1.1 2.9 Total 20.8 24.6 30.1 29.5 35.3 Agendafunding (millionsof US dollars) Members Europe 7.6 8.3 10.1 12.1 10.9 NorthAmerica 4.9 5.2 5.0 5.0 6.3 Pacific Rim 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 Developingcountries 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.1 2.4 Foundations 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7 Internationalandregionalorganizations 4.1 5.2 6.0 5.3 7.1 Subtotal 18.9 21.1 24.3 25.5 28.4 Non-members 1.0 1.8 3.2 2.5 3.6 Total 19.8 22.9 27.5 27.9 32.0 Top threecontributors USA USA United Kingdom United Kingdom USA World Bank United Kingdom USA USA United Kingdom Japan World Bank UNEP UNEP UNEP Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 60 49 54 56 59 Support 856 876 880 870 873 Total 916 925 934 926 932 Object of expenditure Personnelcosts 42% 48% 48% 51% 47% Supplies & services 35% 37% 36% 27% 31% Collaboration& partnerships 6% 6% 12% 12% Travel 6% 5% 7% 7% 8% Depreciation 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% Total(millionsof US dollars) 24.7 24.0 26.8 28.4 34.0 Expenditurebyregion Sub-SaharanAfrica 49% 51% 50% 59% 59% Asia 50% 49% 50% 41% 41% LatinAmerica& theCaribbean 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% CentralandWestAsia& NorthAfrica 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Result of operations[surplus/(deficit) in US$m] (4.0) 0.6 3.3 1.0 1.2 Centerfinancialinformation (millionsof US dollars) Unrestrictednetassets excludingfixedassets 5.9 7.4 8.9 9.3 10.5 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital(days expenditure) 1 219 284 197 184 171 Currentratio 1 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.1 Adequacyof reserveindicator Netassets excl.fixedassets expenditureindays 92 167 124 122 114 Fixed asset indicators Capitalexpenditure(millions ofUS dollars) 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 Capitalexpenditure/depreciation 23% 53% 82% 64% 112% Efficiencyof operationsindicator Indirectcostratio 23% 24% 23% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 2 0.55 0.54 0.27 12004and2005restatedtoexcludeinvestmentinnon-marketableGovernmentofIndiabonds. 22004and2005restatedtoreflectrefinementofformula(accountsreceivablesstatednetofallowancefordoubtful accounts). 51 Table A6.10 IFPRI Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 22.9 26.5 32.8 36.2 37.2 (of which unrestricted) 37% 42% 46% 43% 39% Earned income 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.9 Total 23.3 27.2 33.6 36.5 38.1 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 8.8 8.5 12.1 14.1 11.6 North America 4.0 5.2 9.1 12.4 10.4 Pacific Rim 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 Developingcountries 0.9 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.0 Foundations 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1 International and regional organizations 3.9 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.2 Subtotal 20.2 22.0 28.2 34.7 30.2 Non-members 2.7 3.3 3.6 2.4 5.5 Total 22.9 25.3 31.8 37.1 35.7 Top three contributors USA World Bank USA USA USA Germ any USA World Bank World Bank World Bank World Bank E.C. E.C. Canada United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 66 67 76 90 89 Support 97 90 117 121 121 Total 163 157 193 211 210 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 51% 46% 45% 44% 45% Supplies & services 40% 29% 21% 20% 21% Collaboration & partnerships 16% 22% 27% 24% Travel 8% 8% 11% 8% 8% Depreciation 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Total (millions of US dollars) 22.7 26.5 31.4 39.7 39.1 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 49% 48% 50% 50% 50% Asia 29% 32% 33% 33% 33% Latin America & the Caribbean 19% 17% 13% 13% 13% Central and West Asia & North Africa 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] 0.6 0.7 2.2 (1.1) (1.0) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 7.9 8.7 10.5 8.9 8.4 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 141 150 138 95 96 Current ratio 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 130 128 121 82 81 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.2 Capital expenditure / depreciation 88% 86% 231% 208% 33% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 15% 16% 15% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 0.52 0.98 0.53 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 52 Table A6.11 IITAProgram and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 31.4 36.6 42.8 41.2 45.1 (of which unrestricted) 39% 33% 29% 30% 29% Earned income 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 Total 32.4 37.9 44.3 42.7 46.5 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 10.4 12.4 13.6 13.7 14.3 North America 10.9 15.0 15.7 13.1 15.6 Pacific Rim 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 Developingcountries 0.1 1.6 4.4 3.3 3.0 Foundations 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 International and regional organizations 5.1 4.1 3.3 3.5 3.6 Subtotal 28.8 34.2 37.9 34.6 37.5 Non-members 2.6 2.4 4.8 6.6 7.2 Total 31.4 36.6 42.7 41.2 44.7 Top three contributors USA USA USA USA USA World Bank E.C. Nigeria Canada World Bank Japan World Bank Canada Nigeria Nigeria Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 96 98 102 106 107 Support 859 863 912 994 1,128 Total 955 961 1,014 1,100 1,235 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 39% 36% 36% 36% 40% Supplies & services 49% 40% 40% 43% 35% Collaboration & partnerships 14% 14% 10% 15% Travel 6% 6% 7% 8% 7% Depreciation 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% Total (millions of US dollars) 32.6 37.7 42.6 40.2 44.4 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% Asia 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% Latin America & the Caribbean 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% Central and West Asia & North Africa 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] (0.2) 0.2 1.7 2.6 2.1 Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 11.1 11.0 12.8 17.3 18.7 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 124 113 112 162 159 Current ratio 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 131 113 112 162 159 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.0 Capital expenditure / depreciation 39% 114% 94% 113% 153% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 24% 24% 20% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 0.04 0.09 0.22 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 53 TableA6.12ILRIProgramand ResourceHighlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues(millionsof US dollars) Agendafunding 26.4 29.5 32.9 31.7 26.7 (ofwhichunrestricted) 48% 48% 48% 49% 51% Earnedincome 0.4 1.6 2.1 2.5 3.9 Total 26.8 31.1 34.9 34.2 30.6 Agendafunding (millionsof US dollars) Members Europe 14.2 15.9 16.9 14.8 12.3 NorthAmerica 4.2 4.8 7.6 9.0 5.9 Pacific Rim 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 Developingcountries 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 Foundations 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.5 Internationalandregionalorganizations 4.3 4.5 3.9 3.3 3.1 Subtotal 24.5 27.1 30.4 28.8 22.8 Non-members 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.4 3.3 Total 26.4 29.2 32.2 31.2 26.0 Top threecontributors United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Canada USA USA USA Canada USA Canada World Bank World Bank USA United Kingdom United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 73 70 92 74 81 Support 630 661 628 626 693 Total 703 731 720 700 774 Object of expenditure Personnelcosts 49% 44% 43% 47% 49% Supplies & services 39% 39% 30% 13% 31% Collaboration& partnerships 6% 12% 29% 6% Travel 5% 4% 6% 6% 6% Depreciation 8% 7% 9% 5% 8% Total(millionsof US dollars) 27.4 31.0 31.7 32.2 34.8 Expenditurebyregion Sub-SaharanAfrica 66% 66% 66% 65% 65% Asia 22% 24% 28% 24% 24% LatinAmerica& theCaribbean 10% 8% 4% 6% 6% CentralandWestAsia& NorthAfrica 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% Result of operations[surplus/(deficit) in US$m] (0.7) 0.1 3.2 2.1 (4.2) Centerfinancialinformation (millionsof US dollars) Unrestrictednetassets excludingfixedassets 12.1 13.5 18.2 20.6 14.2 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital(days expenditure) 168 159 216 231 194 Currentratio 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.3 Adequacyof reserveindicator Netassets excl.fixedassets expenditureindays 174 176 207 224 159 Fixed asset indicators Capitalexpenditure(millions ofUS dollars) 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 Capitalexpenditure/depreciation 31% 30% 54% 93% 57% Efficiencyof operationsindicator Indirectcostratio 20% 17% 22% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 1 0.35 0.68 0.34 12004and2005restatedtoreflectrefinementofformula(accountsreceivablesstatednetofallowancefordoubtful accounts). 54 Table A6.13 IRRI Program and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 28.5 27.3 32.4 28.5 27.7 (of which unrestricted) 51% 50% 50% 50% 51% Earned income 4.6 4.8 4.1 (0.4) 3.9 Total 33.1 32.1 36.4 28.1 31.6 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 12.4 13.0 14.6 13.9 10.6 North America 4.6 4.5 5.6 4.8 5.0 Pacific Rim 4.4 5.2 5.7 4.8 4.3 Developingcountries 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 Foundations 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 International and regional organizations 4.5 2.8 2.9 2.9 5.1 Subtotal 28.2 26.8 30.1 28.0 26.6 Non-members 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.5 1.1 Total 28.5 26.9 32.3 28.5 27.7 Top three contributors World Bank United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom USA Japan USA USA USA United Kingdom USA Japan Japan Switzerland Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 78 72 70 72 73 Support 730 783 810 812 832 Total 808 855 880 884 905 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 49% 44% 39% 40% 43% Supplies & services 38% 31% 33% 33% 31% Collaboration & partnerships 7% 14% 12% 12% Travel 7% 10% 7% 9% 8% Depreciation 6% 7% 7% 6% 6% Total (millions of US dollars) 33.4 28.8 32.9 33.4 33.3 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% Asia 92% 92% 92% 89% 89% Latin America & the Caribbean 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% Central and West Asia & North Africa 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] (0.2) 3.3 3.5 (5.4) (1.7) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 16.7 38.3 41.5 36.8 33.6 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 232 553 490 422 388 Current ratio 1.8 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.1 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 195 523 490 422 388 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 1.1 1.8 3.0 1.6 3.5 Capital expenditure / depreciation 42% 90% 132% 77% 173% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 18% 22% 21% 21% 21% Cash management on restricted operations Restricted accounts receivable ratio 1 0.69 0.78 0.52 12004 and 2005 restated to reflectrefinementofformula (accountsreceivablesstated netofallowance fordoubtful accounts). 55 TableA6.14IWMIProgramand ResourceHighlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues(millionsof US dollars) Agendafunding 20.3 22.1 23.6 23.1 20.0 (ofwhichunrestricted) 35% 48% 46% 46% 44% Earnedincome 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 Total 21.0 22.3 23.8 23.6 20.5 Agendafunding (millionsof US dollars) Members Europe 10.9 11.4 12.7 13.3 11.6 NorthAmerica 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.3 1.8 Pacific Rim 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.8 Developingcountries 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Foundations 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 Internationalandregionalorganizations 4.7 6.1 5.6 4.5 3.4 Subtotal 18.4 21.2 22.9 21.9 18.6 Non-members 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.2 Total 20.3 22.1 23.5 22.7 19.9 Top threecontributors World Bank Netherlands World Bank World Bank World Bank ADB World Bank Netherlands Netherlands France Netherlands France France United Kingdom United Kingdom Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 81 93 92 110 115 Support 271 272 251 261 259 Total 352 365 343 371 374 Object of expenditure Personnelcosts 54% 51% 52% 59% 61% Supplies & services 36% 17% 10% 1% 6% Collaboration& partnerships 21% 27% 29% 13% Travel 7% 9% 9% 9% 17% Depreciation 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Total(millionsof US dollars) 20.7 23.0 23.1 23.1 20.6 Expenditurebyregion Sub-SaharanAfrica 13% 19% 28% 38% 38% Asia 76% 70% 63% 43% 43% LatinAmerica& theCaribbean 4% 5% 4% 11% 11% CentralandWestAsia& NorthAfrica 6% 6% 5% 8% 8% Result of operations[surplus/(deficit) in US$m] 0.2 (0.7) 0.7 0.4 (0.1) Centerfinancialinformation (millionsof US dollars) Unrestrictednetassets excludingfixedassets 4.0 3.3 4.2 4.4 4.0 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital(days expenditure) 92 78 91 96 100 Currentratio 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.8 Adequacyof reserveindicator Netassets excl.fixedassets expenditureindays 73 54 65 71 64 Fixed asset indicators Capitalexpenditure(millions ofUS dollars) 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.9 Capitalexpenditure/depreciation 188% 108% 64% 124% 188% Efficiencyof operationsindicator Indirectcostratio 1 22% 23% 21% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 2 0.16 0.73 0.31 12005ratiorestated. 22004and2005restatedtoreflectrefinementofformula(accountsreceivablesstatednetofallowancefordoubtful accounts). 56 Table A6.15 World AgroforestryProgram and Resource Highlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues (millions of US dollars) Agenda funding 21.3 27.3 29.7 30.2 29.9 (of which unrestricted) 32% 31% 32% 33% 31% Earned income 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.2 Total 21.9 27.9 30.2 30.5 31.1 Agenda funding (millions of US dollars) Members Europe 11.1 15.0 15.3 14.5 11.7 North America 4.0 5.1 5.8 5.0 6.0 Pacific Rim 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 Developingcountries 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 Foundations 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.5 International and regional organizations 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.8 Subtotal 20.1 25.6 26.5 25.3 23.8 Non-members 1.2 1.4 2.9 4.3 5.7 Total 21.3 27.0 29.4 29.6 29.5 Top three contributors World Bank Sweden Sweden Sweden USA Sweden Canada Canada Canada Sweden Canada E.C. Netherlands Netherlands Canada Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 50 52 51 46 45 Support 276 402 406 401 421 Total 326 454 457 447 466 Object of expenditure Personnel costs 55% 46% 47% 46% 43% Supplies & services 30% 27% 27% 29% 31% Collaboration & partnerships 15% 7% 7% 11% Travel 11% 9% 15% 14% 12% Depreciation 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% Total (millions of US dollars) 21.8 27.4 28.5 30.0 31.9 Expenditure byregion Sub-Saharan Africa 82% 79% 81% 74% 74% Asia 14% 17% 16% 22% 22% Latin America & the Caribbean 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% Central and West Asia & North Africa 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Result of operations [surplus/(deficit) in US$ m] 0.2 0.5 1.8 0.5 (0.9) Center financial information (millions of US dollars) Unrestricted net assets excludingfixed assets 8.6 5.0 6.9 2.6 7.0 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital (days expenditure) 123 128 152 160 140 Current ratio 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 Adequacyof reserve indicator Net assets excl. fixed assets expenditure in days 152 71 92 94 82 Fixed asset indicators Capital expenditure (millions of US dollars) 0.3 0.4 1.2 1.1 0.6 Capital expenditure / depreciation 31% 37% 97% 89% 68% Efficiencyof operations indicator Indirect cost ratio 28% 20% 22% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 0.71 1.02 1.10 57 TableA6.16WorldFish Programand ResourceHighlights Actual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenues(millionsof US dollars) Agendafunding 12.7 14.5 14.3 13.3 14.8 (ofwhichunrestricted) 42% 42% 47% 55% 50% Earnedincome 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.4 Total 12.7 15.9 15.2 13.4 15.2 Agendafunding (millionsof US dollars) Members Europe 6.3 6.3 7.2 7.9 7.0 NorthAmerica 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 Pacific Rim 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.4 Developingcountries 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 Foundations 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Internationalandregionalorganizations 1.8 2.4 2.3 1.6 3.3 Subtotal 11.8 12.9 13.5 12.9 14.1 Non-members 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.7 Total 12.7 14.2 14.2 13.3 14.8 Top threecontributors USA USA United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom World Bank United Kingdom USA USA USA United Kingdom World Bank Netherlands Netherlands World Bank Staffing (number) Internationally recruited 30 35 33 44 44 Support 256 267 284 262 278 Total 286 302 317 306 322 Object of expenditure Personnelcosts 43% 38% 46% 43% 50% Supplies & services 48% 36% 25% 31% 21% Collaboration& partnerships 16% 18% 11% 17% Travel 8% 9% 10% 13% 10% Depreciation 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Total(millionsof US dollars) 12.3 15.5 14.1 15.2 15.5 Expenditurebyregion Sub-SaharanAfrica 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% Asia 58% 58% 58% 66% 66% LatinAmerica& theCaribbean 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% CentralandWestAsia& NorthAfrica 8% 8% 8% 14% 14% Result of operations[surplus/(deficit) in US$m] 0.4 0.3 1.0 (1.7) (0.3) Centerfinancialinformation (millionsof US dollars) Unrestrictednetassets excludingfixedassets 8.6 9.2 10.2 8.2 7.0 Liquidityindicators Workingcapital(days expenditure) 272 223 277 208 204 Currentratio 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.6 Adequacyof reserveindicator Netassets excl.fixedassets expenditureindays 260 216 271 203 194 Fixed asset indicators Capitalexpenditure(millions ofUS dollars) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 Capitalexpenditure/depreciation 115% 124% 89% 191% 54% Efficiencyof operationsindicator Indirectcostratio 35% 30% 21% Cash management on restricted operations Restrictedaccounts receivableratio 1 0.64 0.55 0.45 12004and2005restatedtoreflectrefinementofformula(accountsreceivablesstatednetofallowancefordoubtful accounts). 58 Glossary of Terms Net Assets The total of what is owned by a Center after deducting what is owed (the equivalent of "retained earnings" or "owner's equity" in a commercial business). Net assets are the accumulated "surpluses" (excess of revenue over expenses) over the years. Unrestricted Net Assets These are net assets resulting from an excess of unrestricted revenue over unrestricted expenses. Use of unrestricted net assets is determined by the Center's Board management. Restricted Net Assets These are net assets resulting from an excess of restricted grant revenue over restricted expenses. Use of restricted net assets is determined by the Members contributing the restricted grants. Restricted net assets are not common in the Centers because of the accounting policies and business practices followed in the CGIAR. Net Fixed Assets This represents the cost of fixed assets (property and equipment) net of the depreciation charge. It is also referred to as "book value" of property and equipment. Liquidity Liquidity refers to an organization's ability to meet its short-term obligations. Technically, it is the difference between current assets and current liabilities. Liquidity can be in terms of a ratio (called current ratio) or number of days of operating expenditure. Liquidity is also referred to as "working capital". Quick Ratio Quick ratio is a more restricted measure of liquidity because it takes into account only those current assets that are cash or easily convertible into cash to pay for the current liabilities. Working Capital This is defined as current asset minus current liabilities. Short-term Solvency (liquidity indicator) This is Working Capital as defined above divided by per day operating expenses excluding depreciation. This indicator measures the ability of a Center to sustain current level of operation in the event of donor delays in grant remittance. Long-term Stability (adequacy of reserve indicator) This indicator measures the number of days of operation that a Center can support from its own resources (i.e., reserves). It is computed as Unrestricted Net Assets, less Net Fixed Assets, divided by per day operating expenses (defined below) excluding depreciation. Direct Costs These are operating costs incurred by a Center that can be traced directly to a project or discrete research activity. Common examples of direct costs include the cost of staff assigned to a specific project (in proportion to the time allocated to the project), or the cost of supplies or equipment consumed by the project. Indirect Costs These are operating costs incurred for the purpose of managing, overseeing and supporting a Center's overall research activities, and hence cannot be directly identified with a specific project or research activity. Common indirect costs in the CGIAR include the cost of Center (not research) management, and the cost of Boards of Trustees. Indirect Cost Rate This is the ratio of indirect costs to direct costs expressed as a percentage. 59 Cash Management of Restricted Operation This ratio measures the ability of a Center to manage restricted projects operations with the amount of cash advances received and reimbursements expected from donors. It is computed as restricted donors' accounts receivable divided by restricted donors' accounts payable expressed as a ratio. The desirable benchmark is a ratio less than 1. Per day Operating Expenses The total Operating Expenses of a Center less depreciation divided by 365 days. This indicator measures the daily cash requirement of a Center in the course of normal operations. 60