Can we, the CGIAR stakeholders, agree on a more focused, cohesive research program consisting of a set of high-priority research themes, each guided by a well defined goal, timeline and annual milestones? Based on the feedback my Science Council colleagues and I have received at the CGIAR Annual General Meeting in Mexico and from a large number of meetings, consultations, and informal interactions with donors, Centers, NARS, and other stakeholders, the answer seems to be a resounding yes. Virtually everyone with whom we spoke, agreed on the need to more sharply define system priorities. Rarely have I met a more positive and constructive response to a proposed change within the CGIAR than that received in stakeholder and business meeting sessions on system priorities, held in Mexico.

We have received many suggestions for additional research and development activities to be done by the CGIAR but virtually no suggestions for things we should stop doing. If we are to sharpen the focus of our work to a smaller number of high-priority activities and if we are to take on new research reflecting emerging issues, something we are currently doing must go. This calls for making difficult choices, but that is a challenge we cannot shrink away from. But what do we do about those activities that are certainly related to our work that come with earmarked funding but do not really constitute high-priority system research? Do we sacrifice that funding in the interest of a more cohesive research program for the CGIAR?

In my opinion, there should be room for some activities that are not necessarily part of our system priorities, particularly new exploratory type research that may eventually evolve into core system priorities. The Science Council proposes that 10-20 % of the CGIAR budget be allocated to such activities. But what about the activities that are really short-term consulting and medium-term development type activities that Centers accept to keep the books balanced without even trying to argue that they contribute to research to generate international public goods? If Centers do not accept such jobs, they may lose the funding.

The solution to this problem is for the donors, including those who are not CGIAR members, to direct 80-90 % of their future funding away from such activities towards financing the agreed upon system priority research portfolio. An important part of such a solution would be that donors of activities that fall outside system priorities pay full costs instead of forcing Centers to spend part of the funds directed at system priority to cover indirect costs and in that way water down the funds allocated for system priority research. The current use of unrestricted funds to subsidize restricted projects is a major reason why some Centers have difficulties delivering on their core research priorities. We should discontinue such a practice if we want to take the system priorities seriously. Funds allocated to Centers or to the system for priority research areas would have only one restriction: money be spent on the agreed-upon system priorities. This would be the new "core funding." Imagine if we could agree that 80-90 % of the total funding would be core, instead of the current 45%. We could put a critical mass of resources to work on each of a small number of agreed upon system priorities, we would undoubtedly have much greater impact, the impact would be more visible, and we would fulfill our mandate of producing international public goods that serve to help remove critical barriers to the alleviation of poverty, hunger and malnutrition and to sustainable management of natural resources. We could also reduce the large number of proposals, progress reports, evaluations, and other transactions costs associated with a large number of small specially funded donor projects. We would operate as a System without sacrificing the benefits of independent Centers and bilateral interaction between donors and Centers.

Too good to be true? No, I do not believe so. Can we get there from here? Only if all stakeholder groups are determined to make it happen. The Science Council can provide the leadership, but it cannot make it happen. This is the time to act. The financial situation of the CGIAR is good, there is increasing awareness about the importance of agricultural development to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and there is tremendous goodwill among Centers and donors for changing the trend towards an increasing number of small individually-funded projects in favor of a more cohesive research program to generate international public goods. In addition, new science calls for more collaboration among Centers and more effective partnerships with institutions outside the CGIAR.

Based on the feedback we have received from all quarters, the Science Council is proceeding with preparations for individual planning meetings for the priority areas to take place in January and February, 2005. We hope to identify a final set of priorities at our April meeting. Our vision is that, over the next 2-3 years, the CGIAR will move to a situation in which 80-90 % of the total budget will be spent on system priority research. Together we can make it happen.

Per Pinstrup-Andersen