AGR/TAC:IAR/90/11

TAC Working Document (Not for Public Citation)

CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Fifty-First Meeting, FAO Hqs., Rome (Italy), 12 - 17 March 1990

SUPPLEMENTARY REVIEW ON ICRAF

(Agenda Item 3)

TAC SECRETARIAT

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

March 1990

A. 2 .H. Obaidullah Rharn

Supplementary Reriw on ICMF

International Council for Research in Agroforestry has over the years moved

away from its Council function and narrow focus on wasted lands to hands-on

research regarding integration of trees in diverse land use systems. ICRAF

pursues a multi-disciplinary and an analytical/diagnostic approach and

researches components, techniques and technology-systems emphasizing the tree

component and the tree-crop-animal-pasture interface. “ICRAF has activities

within the whole continuum of strategic, applied and adaptive research,

development and application of appropriate systems, including the provision of

materials for training, eduction and extension. .1 The focus is on the

integration aspects of technology development cycle in a given bio-physical

and socio-economic environment. Growing number of on-farm trials is

progressively incorporating the ultimate beneficiaries, the resource-poor

farmers in the design-process of agro-forestry technologies (Attachment i:

Diagrams 1 & 2)

CGIAR and agroforestry:

The CGIAR system was not originally conceived as being involved in

research on forestry or agroforestry. However farming system research by some

commodity/resource-management centers has incorporated trees as well as* animal

crops and livestock. IXTA has established a program based on “alley farming’

systems for the forest/Savannah transition zone in West and Central Africa.

1 TAC Fact Finding Mission: Report on ICRAP, May 7, 1989.

- 2 -

This work is‘being adapted and extended to the humid forest and the moist

Savannah ecologies. IITA along with ILCA and ICRAP is collaborating with

fifteen African countries in the alley-fanning network in Africa (AFNETA). A

special project involving IITA, ICRAP and Oregon State University will

initiate the screening, acquisition and propagation of multipurpose tree (MPT)

germplasms at IITA stations in Ibadan and Onne.

Agroforestry is an important component of ICRISAT’s Resource Management

Program. Beside testing alley-cropping with pigeon-pea as tree-substitute,

ICRISAT is collaborating with the Indian Central Research Institute for Dry

land Agriculture in looking at systems with widely-spaced Acacia Albida and

Albizia Lebbek in order to assess competition for light and water. ICRISAT’ s

Sahelian Center has a program since 1987 for identifying genotypes most

suitable for forage, fuelwood, and wind-break uses. ICFUF provides technical

support e

Following a short collaborative exercise in the early 1980s between CIAT

and ICUF on the diagnosis and design of alternative silvipastoral

technologies, CIAT has been conducting experiments in screening woody species

in their relationship with adjacent pastures. CIAT’s bean program has been

examining the use of trees for the support of pole-beans grown in steep, slopes

in Rwanda and Burundi.

ILCA is testing multipurpose trees as part of its feed-resources thrust

in the humid. subhumid and highland zones and has both an ongoing and future

- 3 -

program of work to investigate the potential of multipurpose trees in

different agro-ecological zones and production-systems.

IBPGR has an interest in conserving and is involved with a specific

number of fruit tree genepools and with some cash-crops like cacao, rubber,

coffee, coconut. Standards developed by IBPGR for seed-storage are equally

applicable to tree-species. Collaboration between ICRAP and IBPGR has

resulted in a joint publication on multipurpose trees.

IFPRI is working with CIAT in a special joint project currently analyzing

the interrelationship between agriculture and natural resources in the

Peruvian Amazon in an attempt to identify key technological components of

sustainable agricultural production systems and the policies necessary to

support them in that region.

Other centers like CIMMYT. CIP, IRRI. ICARDA and UARDA have incorporated

agro-ecological considerations into their programs.

ICRAF’s work and its complimentarity with production systems research in other

CG centers:

ICRAF as the global lead institution has been engaged

.*

in collating.

synthesizing and disseminating information on the role and potential of

agroforestry in land-husbandry and rural development. A challenging task for

ICRAF is to integrate the isolated components of the substantial knowledge

- 4 -

base that it has built up and to bring that knowledge to bear upon crop and/or

animal farming. This complex and interdisciplinary knowledge-base, cutting

across many biophysical and socio-economic disciplines as well as

administrative and Legal dimensions impinging on land-use, is clearly

supportive of various production-systems research in which CC centers are

engaged. Moreover, ICRAF’s field-experimentation program has a research-

methodology focus. The concepts and methodologies developed by ICRAF can and

do complement resource-management work in other centers. In fact, ICRAF has a

wide array of formal and informal links with other IARCs including its non-

associated centers. The External Review Panel (June-July, 1989) while

endorsing the ICRAF strategy of consolidating collaborative research programs

in four eco-zones of Africa and limiting such efforts in Latin America and

Asia to research-planing, training and provision of information and advise,

goes on to recommend that ICRAF may take advantage of the IARCs located in

those areas for a better geographical balance and to obtain results which

might also benefit the African program.

Research needs in agroforestry not being fully met at present:

TAC fact-finding mission in its report on ICRAF notes that ‘a major gap

occurs in economic evaluation of normally unquantified benefits such as risk-

avoidance, income diversif ication, counter seasonality in income and labor-

demand, soil-erosion control and down-stream effects.” Beside the obvious

measure of economic return, ‘it is urgent to establish some other measure of

the “value ’ of a system such as constancy or sustainability of the system.-2

Moreover. although ICRAF’s diagnosis and design methodology permits the

identification of physical and policy constraints at the macro and the meso

levels as well as socio-economic constraints at the micro-level,” most AFUNA

blue-prints address social factors at a very general level and do not include

specific agricultural problems as experienced by specific categories of

farmers *.... For example. although existing tenurial institutions have been

identified as potential and actual constraints to the adoption of

agroforestry, no research has been initiated on this topic.‘3 A collaborative

arrangement between ICRAF and IFPRI could be useful in analyzing the economics

of the complex agroforestry systems and in specifying the policy-environment

which will encourage this adoption and diffusion.

Another weak link, as pointed out by the External Review Panel, is that

much of AFRENA research focusses on a single technology (alley-farming) using

a very limited range of species (four or five generally exotic trees for vhich

silvicultural information is available and one or two crops). thus, narroving

farmers’ options. ICRAF is aware of it and addressing the same.

Activities and modes of operation: c

2 ICRAF and a decade of agro-forestry development by Howard A. Steppler in Agroforestry: A decade of development ed. by H. A. Steppler and P. K. R. Nair.

3 Report of the External Review Panel (June 18 - July 22. 1989).

- 6 -

ICRAP’s- research, training and information activities stem from three

strategic goals:

1. to foster the agroforestry discipline by developing

concepts, methods and analytical tools:

2. to cooperate with national institutions in an eco-ronal

context in building up mutual research capability and in

generating or improving relevant and promising

technologies:

3. and to promote the use of appropriate agroforestry systems

and technologies as instruments of national development by

identification, acquisition and dissemination of relevant

information.

The operational philosophy of the Council is thus to provide in three

separate but collaborating division, the methodology and technology generation

(Research Development Division); the initiation of technology generation and

associated training in selected eco-zones and countries {Collaborative Progrzn

Division) ; and the dissemination of relevant knowledge to different aud,iences

and target-groups, i.e. policy-makers, international and national research

institutions, universities, ertensionists and farmers (Information and

Communication Division). All divisions are involved in national institution

building. A brief indicative list of projects and activities is at Attachment

-7-

2. ICRAF governance is proposing a restructuring of the three operational

divisions into two: Research and Col.laborative Program Division and

Information and Training Division. The operational divisions are and wiL1 be

fully supported by a Finance and Administrative Division. (Attachment 3)

During the period from 1986 to 1990, there has been a dramatic growth in

ICRAF programs both in terms of financial and human resources. Over the

period, total operational expenditures increased at an average annual rate of

292 while senior staff positions increased at an average annual rate of 22Z

(Attachment 4). ICRAF’s expenditure for research has shown the most dramatic

growth increasing from $0.52 million (20.11 of total operating expenditures)

to a projected $4.15 million (50.21) in 1990, representing an approximate

seven-fold increase. Cn average 65Z of ICRAF’s senior staff is allocated to

research. Expenditures for the development of research capacity (training.

information and technical assistance) increased from SO.97 million in 1986 to

a projected 52.58 million in 1990. However, the rate of growth decreased each

year since 1907 so that in 1990 development of research capacity is expected

to decline by 61 over the 1989 level as a percentage of total expenditures but

not in absolute terms. It should be mentioned, however, that expenditures on

training and technical assistance have remained stable over the years. vhile

expenditures on information and documentation have declined. On the other

hand, expenditure on administration and general operations has declined from

42.51 of the budget in 1986 to 23.6Z in 1988 and is projected at around 18Z in

1990 (Attachment 5). The norm for the CG system is 55Z for research and 211

to 26Z for development of research capacity and administration respectively.

- 8 -

However, there is a wide variation actosa CG centers. In that context, the

fact that ICRAF collaborative programs are engaged in research mu&t be

recognized. As Board Chairman of ICRAP puts it, ‘The notion that ICRAF does

research and national programs ‘merely’ receive technical assistance must be

avoided.‘4

Disaggregating resource allocations to strategic, applied and adaptive

research is difficult as the boundaries are quite often blurred in a complex

system like agroforestry. Even on-farm adaptive research has its

strategic/methodological component in research-design.

Collaborative networking:

Collaborative research networks of ICEUF in Africa (AFRENA) are basically

enabling arrangements and are mutually beneficial. Location-specific

agroforestry research has to devote a rather high proportion of total research

efforts to observational trials, prototype systems trial and learning from on-

farm situations. The reiterative nature of the diagnosis and design process

and the absence of any institutional framework in country settings have

induced ICRAF to mobilize policy support as well as financial and technical

resources to work closely with national research and development instiiutions.

Whether administration and funding of network is a valid function of

international centers rather than of development agencies is a valid question.

The need for institutionalization of agroforestry in country-settings and the

4 Minutes of the ICRAF Donor Support Group Meeting; October 28. 1989.

-9-

importance of collaborative mode in diversified land-use systems have

persuaded ICRAF to utilizing the enabling arrangement as an interim but

necessary strategy.

The mandate and its relevance to CG goals:

The mandate of ICRAF is to initiate, support and collaborate in. research

leading to the development of productive and sustainable land-use systems

through the integration of woody perennials into such systems. The overall

*mission is to “increase the social, economic and nutritional well-being of

peoples of developing countries through the promotion of agroforestry systems

to achieve better land-use.” Clearly the mandate and the mission fall within

the CG objective of sustainable and productive land-use particularly in

fragile ecosystems by resource-poor farmers. Further as the report of TAC

fact-finding commission notes:

“The Impacts of the Council which contribute to the CGIAR goal

include:

* the increased international and national awareness of the

potential application of agroforestry by institutions, l

politicians, administrators, scientists, line managers and

the public, judged by the specific identification of

agroforestry in donor and national budgets and research

programmes, educational activities, and media;

- 10 -

* the stimulation and enhanced collaboration of national

research and land management institutions, at least in the

four African zones, often with direct technical support

from ICRAF, judged by donor and national budgets:

* the large number of staff (300 by 1989) trained at various

levels and for various tasks in agroforestry, both within

AFRENA and Africa and outside in Asia and Latin America by

means of courses and workshops, judged by staff numbers

and career opportunities;

+ the cooperation between ICRAF, several other CGIAR centers

(including ICRISAT, XXTA and ILCA), many national research

institutions (e.g., ICAR, KEFRI and BARC), some regional

organizations (e.g., CATIE, XICA and SEARCA), and

international bodies (e.g., FAO, IHSS, IUFRO, NFTA and

LMO) :

* the availability of published and ‘grey’ literature useful

for national research, educational and development c-

institutions;

* the availability and experience of a system D h D to

analyze land use problems and derive research strategies,

- 11 -

judged by the number of countries and institutions using

it: and

f the availability of research methods, experimental designs

and analytical/interpretative procedures, again judged by .

the number of organizations and scientists using, testing

or adapting them.

Governance and management:

With the withdrawal of IDRC as an executing agency and divestiture by the

donor groups of all power to appoint trustees on the ICR4F Board in April,

1981, ICRAF’s legal status and governance have been brought into line with

those that typically exist for CGIAR centers. With the exception of

representation from the host country, trustees are appointed in thear personal

capacities. ICRAF has also a Donor Support Group formed in 1985. Members of

the group have observer status at the board meetings. The support group

harmonizes donor interests vis-a-vie ICRAP and offers Secretariat services.

A recurrent feature of iCR4F budget has been a deficit in its core

program which has been financed over the years by its special project gunds.

The problem has been exacerbated by the rather unequal distribution of core-

funding burden among donors. A CG Secretariat analysis shows that top three

donors in 1988 contributed 57Z of the total funding to ICRAF and the

distribution of that contribution between unrestricted and restricted funding

was 23 and F7 percentages respectively. The problem of deficit financing and

the urgent need for a balance between core and non-core funds have been

highlighted by the External Review Panel and deliberated upon by the Donor

Support Group. The management is taking a number of steps to erase the core-

fund deficit as of 1990 and to build up a working capital of $600,000. The

steps being undertaken are at Attachment 6.

Two caveats, however, may be introduced here. First, nearly all of ICFUF

activity is core-related but funded from a mixture of core-restricted, core

and special projects. Second, core versus non-core is not meaningful where

there is no donor of last resort, although different degrees of restriction

pose management complications.5

Conclusions :

ICRAF as a relatively small research council with an international

mandate has

a) developed, tested and applied a systematic,

multidisciplinary and logical approach to agroforestry

research for the development of relevant technologies with C

a number of supporting methods, concepts and scientific

tools (data bases, computer programnes. manuals, etc.);

5 Minutes of Donor Support Group Meeting, remarks by represelltat ive from Rockefeller Foundation.

b) built up in collaboration with national institutions in

Africa and by using its approach to research, four

ecozone-based research programs aiming at generating

problem-solving and potential-enhancing agroforestry

technologies of a regional and location-specific nature

with more and more incorporation of the ultimate

beneficiaries into the design process;

cl organized a comprehensive information center on

agroforestry. considering both the scientific and

developmental aspects of the discipline.

ICFUF meets both the qualitative criteria of CG objectives, i)

sustainable and productive land-use; ii) income generation and poverty

alleviation particularly in fragile eco-systems. Agroforestry research is

essentially a farming systems approach that concentrates on improved

understanding, and potential productivity gains from tree/agriculture/

livestock interrelationship. Clearly, biological/entomological research on

tree as a commodity and conservation and improvement of the forests and

woodlands do and will complement the systems approach of agroforestry. c But

agroforestry does not shelter under the forestry umbrella. ICRAF ’ 3

incorporation into the CC system without any loss of identity could complement

the resource-management work of other CG centers.

- 14 -

The main area of uncertainty concerning entry of ICRAF into the CGIAR

system relates to clarification of its hands-on research activities and the

potential of hands-on agroforestry research to benefit from centralized CGIAR

support.

That issue is further addressed in a separate paper prepared by TAC’s

Agroforestry Panel for TAC 51.6

6 See Institutional Options for Entry of Agroforestry into the CGIAR System. CGIAR Secretariat. 15 February 1990.

I nfoco In

ROD Pro8

Attachment 1 Diagram 1

- Olssem inate lnlormat Ion

- farmers aaopt 8 adaat deglqns .

L

3 /

and user know ledges. - Diagnose land

user problems - Identify agroforestry

potentials

I 4

Valluatea agroforestfy

aeslgns

Liz? 3-\ ::: z

I 4

Valluatea

0 agroforestfy

aeslgns

4

RDD Prog. Collpro

List of posstble

RDD Prog. I l 2 Collpro

/ 1 Revit& tecnniial ~nformarlon

I

- Te;:;;r-;-;l;;ry ueslgns 1 \ fl _ w k Generate missing Information

I - components/mgmt. trials - Oeslgn tecnnology

0 Outputs of tne uestgn Drocess

a tn~~t5 Into tne aesign oroc2SS

Attachment 1 Diagram 2

*.

PR8OUCTl6N SYSTEMS

‘ F

MACRO ! 1

D&D

/ DISSEMINATION 1

VALIDATED

TECHNOLOGIES

9 with extension

I : aqenciar, etc.

MICRO

D&D

DESIGN

OF

PROPOSED

TECHNOLOGIES

TESTING OF

TECHNOLOGIES

l ON STATION *ON FARM

COMPONENT

EXPERIMENTATION

/t

/j l on station

l on farm

i

STATE-OF-THE-ART !

REVIEWS

,

Attachment 2

I~aenrcll I.kvclop”lt”l (KDII)

The KDDis responsible for iCl~hl”scort(ribulior, IO 111~ dcvelopmenr of rlie agroforcslry discipline ~n:linty Illrough rhe Corlccptllnl3lId Irlcrllotlologicnl dcvcllll”llcllt ofagroforcsrry rcsc3rch.~rlJ IIK cc~llariorl and amilysic ol information on agroCorest~s~s~cnls/lCCllnolo~ics and 011 mulripurposc rrccs. Il provides advice, backstopping and Ilclp with rlrc irriplcrrlcrllatior1 of rile CUl.l,l’I<O Division’s programme. and in gcrrcrnl. II also upcrntcs a small Field Sralion in Machakos. KcI-$I. l Kolc and porcnrists for agrolorcstry l MPI’ datab,asc.and Seed Directory

l ARrOfOrCStq and soil comcrvation l Agrornclcorology of hll’ is l AgToforcstry and browse production l Al:ernatives (0 shrfrinp cuilivarion l Meihodology of agroforcstry field expcrinlcnrarion l On-farm cxp~nrcnta~~on~cxtcnsion research

mcrhodology l Procorype systems trial design merhodology l Wock~hops (Sesf~~rro, sons research. etc.) l Sourcebook on hlP I introduction and lcsling l Sourcebook on hcdgccrow intercropping rcscarch l ttandbooksi hlar~uals/Gu~dclir~cs l Uara nnalysrs/cornpulcr rnodcts l Agroforcstry dc~clopmcnt in Kcriya l Ecoilofnic analysis Of agroforccrry SystcrnS l Agroforcslry sysrcmt irrvcnlory l Field Slarion (demonslrarions/ trials)

Collaboralive I’rogr~rmucs (COLLI’KO) Diviciun

7 tic objcclivc 0f rllis IIrvicr~lrr ic In Ccl-clpcr;r\c \&ill\ nalional irlsltlutrutrc 111 rcclu~ulogv.gcflcr~t~ill~ tc~c:IrcII projects and fralnrng ~rograrllrncs by d~sscr~~~n;~r~rlg nrrd validaLing rl~e Couric~l’s methods. approaches. co~lcctlls and knowledge. in ,\fricl Ill? Illvtrtorl is w0rkinp tl~rcvrglr IIIC

Agroforcsr’ry Kcscarch Networks lor Africa, Ai:i<tiN~\. in (tie: l unimodat upland plar:au of Sourhern /Ifrica l b&modal higtllands of Eastern and Central Africa l humid io~vlands of \Vest t\fnca l scinl-arld loulands of \vesl ,\frlca In adultion, rtlcre arccoltaboraLlve acrivrtlcs urlcicruay or txclng plarincd in: l IlldIn

l sou~tlcns~ ASIJ

l Latin Anlcrlca The Uivtsr0n atso offers agr0furcsfq progr3f11rr1cs 011 l training courses and rn3tcnais l rellowstllp sctlcrllcs l on-rtle-job IrainIng l 3giOlOrcSlCy cducatron

l Strategic planning

l Policy

l Monitoring and evaluation

BOARD OF TRUSTEES I

------I DIRECTOR GENERAL I---

Functions:

1 Management Committee 1

l Board

l Donors

l Protocol

l Public relations

I-

SENIOR DIRECTOR PROGRAMMES

* Finance

* Personnel

* Operations

\

~ .

.

1 Programme Committee 1

Functions:

l Collaborative research

l Strategic research

l Technology generation

l Sclentlflc services

DIRECTOR INFORMATION & TRAINING

Functions: l lnformatlon & documentation

l Training

l Communication & publications

l Education

l A/V Services

.-- -_:a*- -z2”

(in Smilllori)

Nominal Chanqe 96 of:

1987 act. 1888 act. 1889 061. 1 Q90 plan 1986-90

1989 lQQ0

estimate plan --

“6 1088 vs 1887 vs lO88 vs ll38Q Annual

IlCtUd actual actual ostimale Average -- -’ --

0.79 a.70

0.37 0.33 -- -__

7.16 0.03

1087

actud

1988

actual

-1.5%

105.6% ----

1.3%

14.3%

1.2%

5.2%

-35.7%

IBae actual

Funding Requirementr:

From honors

Self-generated I/

Total

3.13

0.15

3.28

6.07 e.af3

0.30 0.18

13.5%

-40.0%

11.0%

55.8%

11.0%

43 3%

-644%

28.1% 28.1%

-10.8% 21.8%

03.9%

100.0%

04.2%

35.0%

84 2%

72.2%

177.0%

28 8%

28.2%

28.13%

33.6%

2.6%

6.37 7.07

20 27 42 48 54

3.28

2.59

O.BB

8.37

4.46

1.01

7.07

8.39

0.88

7.16 8.03

6.72 a.28

0.44 0.77

80.8% 8.2%

8B.Q% 5.7%

-7.4% 23.3%

-4.7% 21.3%

0.0% 4.3% 5.3% 5.8% 4.8%

28.1%

12.5%

26.1%

22.8%

74.8%

Senmr Posibcwr:

Total Program

Expenditures:

Total Program

Operalmg

Caprlel

Reel Growth Rater (96) :

Funding Requirement8

From Donor4

Expenditure8

22.8%

22.6%

5.1% lntlation rate8 2/

I/ lncludos admtnrstralrve fees. rnter861. fees lrom publrcatrons. Bale ot

of lrxod as6e1.s. sundry income and garn on exchange.

2/ lnllatton rate8 assumed are lor the CG syslem.

Remafch Cale@xiee:

Retwatch:

Ho6ource conwrv. 6 mgmt:

Dev. ol Production Syslems

Development 01 Research Capacity:

TtHlnlng

Dot 6 Dlswmination 01 Info.

tc+chn~cal Aeuslance

sub-total

Admin. b Gen. Operations

Finance. admin. & operahone

t3twd h management 2l

sub-lo&l

sub-total

Total Proggram

LOUa:

Other income 41

Fundtng Aequlremente from Donor6

(in fmillion)

Nommat Chanae (%) ot: 1086 actual 1887 actual 1988 actual 1089 est. lL?l3/ 1990 plan l/2/3/ 1087 act. ls8a act. 1089 est. ,&#Jplm

Senior I/ Financial Seniof Financial Senia Financial Senior Financial Senior Financial w 1686 V6 lasi VS1088 VllW podions rw. po6itims req. positionr req. positions req. poeitiow req. actual actual actual edmule ------ --I- - -- - I__ -- ~ -- _I_

14 0.52 17 1.35 28 2.64 32 2.83 35 4.15 150.6% 05.6% 11.0% 41.8%

2 0.32 3 0.42 2 0.48

2 0.15 2 0.47 8 0.8B

0 0.50 3 0.80 3 0.87 -- -- - -~

4 0.07 8 1.89 13 2.24

0ItdrlbUlKx~ (56 01 tad opecatlone~ - Research

Duv 01 research capacity

Admln B Gun. operahone

20.1% 30.3% 41.3% 43.6% 50.2%

37.5% 37.8% 35.1% 38.8% 31.2%

42.5% 31.8% 23.8% 17.6% 18.5%

1 1.04

1 0.38 --

2 1.42

27 4.48

1111 "1111.1

1.23

0.68

2 1.25

1 0.28 -_I_

3 1.51

42 6.30

1.1. 1111111

0.31

0.37

1.81 0.68

3 0.73

6 0.98

3 0.90 --

12 2.61

3 0 86

1 0.32 - --

4 1.18

48 6.72 1111 111111a

0.44

0.44

48 7.18 1-11 III-LII

0 37

48 6 79 1111 I=i====

3 0.83 31.3% 14.3% 52.1% 13.7%

6 0.85 213.3% 89.4% 10.1% -13.3%

3 090 60.0% 8.7% 3.4% I 0.0% -------

12 2.58 74.2% 32.5% 18.5% -1.1%

5 1.18 14 3% 19.8% -31.0% 34.8%

2 0.37 100.0% -30.8% 21.7% 15.8% ------

7 1.53 29.146 6.3% -21.9% 28.7%

54 8.28 72.2% 43.3% 5.2% 22.8% 111. 1111111 11111.1 m1.11.1 1111.1. 11.11..

215.4% -74.8% -100.0%

O.T7 126.7% -45.8% 18.9% 75.0% --VP-

0.77 176.6% -64.4% -35.3% 75.0%

54 9.03 84.2% 11.0% 1.3% 26.1% rr,e" 1.11111 1-111.. 11111.1 1111.11 1.1.1-1

0.33 100.0% -40.0% 105.6% -10.8%

Attachment 6

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

CORE FUND DEFICIT/WORKlN.G CAPITAL

Reverse US$737,000 benefits in its entirety

The remaining deficit (US$383,055) will be treated as

related to accrued termination

negative working capital

Any surplus in core that results from 1989 operations will be used to reduce the deficit (It appears as of October 1989 that a surplus of about US$lOO,OOO can be expected)

No further under-balancing of core budgets will be accepted

From 1990 onwards, budgetary allocations of US$250,000 will be made annually eventually to remove the deficit and to build up working capital of about US$6OO,OOO

From 1990, budget allocations for staff termination benefits will be based on real, expected costs, i.e. for those staff expected to finish their employment during the year plus a sufficient margin to cater for a likely level of short-notice termination; the possible unspent balance will go towards building up the working capital

j

RfZXARCII AND RELATEI, KTIVITIES

Centres

ICW

Propfxtio~1 of budget aliccated to: H

Reseaxh :

-- strateg.ic

-- applied

-- adaptive

Developnsent of research capacity:

-- training 25

-- technical akstance ++

-- financial assistance ++

-- infomtion & ccmnunications

15

30

5

10

Attachment 7

Af'PENDIX A-l

(‘t) The total will not sum to 100% (+I+ To individual national programes and through networks.

A!.so required: Breakdown to show proportions of budcjet allocated to Ci) research (ii) relaCed activities and (iii) administration, etc.

Research Research related Administration

50 35

&%

A-2 Appendix

RELATJOXSHIYS h'JlH NI,JIONAL PROGRAflt'XS

A. COLLABORATION WITH IHDlVlOUAL

I‘OIJNTAJCS (DEVElOP!D OR DEVELOPlNG)

Country or Project

India Bangladesh Kenya Ghana Canerol~n Ail Qther etc.

1 2 3 4 5 K

I'urpose oi toliaboration

-. Strategic research

- Applied research

- Adaptive research

-- rxtension

- Institution-building x x

- Research Planning t Priority

Setting x X

Types ui * ' I~cloL~"icsl!i,~:

- Uollaborat;ve

- Cnabling

Role (51 of ccntre in the

collaboration:

-- leader/controller

- Customer

_^ Partner/collaborator m

X k

x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

* x x

- Donor

. - Channel for fundlrig

The ahovc analysis should be accompanied by a list of projects and their objcctiqe:+

x Countries fall within fornal Networks.

KK in some casts no funding from Centre.

In other rases funding from donor through iCRiF lo counkr-y.

APPENDIX A-3 -

RELATIONSHIPS WITH NATIONAL, PRcXRMIES

8, PARTICIPATION IN N?Z'IKlRKS

AFRENA AFKE?lA SALWA AE%'EI'A .- -_ - --- E.A. S.A.

Mairi pxposc of network:

-- SCrategic research

--. Appl ied research

-- Adaptive research

-- Exllens ion

-- Institution-building

-- Research planning & priority setting

we of network:

-- Collaborative

-- Research contract.ing

-- Research enabling

Role(s) of Centre in the network:

-- Administrator/controller

-- Scientific coordinator

-- Scientific consulGint/ provider of gerrqlasm

-- Partner/collaborator (no funding fram Centre)

-- Channel for funding

X X

X X

x x

X X

x X

X X

X X

X x

X X

X x

X x

x

X

X x

x X X

c

X :<

The cabove analysis should be acccqanied by a list siving Lhe t.jt.fe of tile network, its objectives and the participating countries.

APFENDIX A-4

TRAXNING AND 1NFUiMATION SERVICES -

Analysis of training in terns of:

product.im research X

on-fam research X

advanced degree x pos t.-dcc tora I sabbatical short-term specialized courses X

Analysis of inform&ion services in term of:

product.ion/~xtension research education

X

X

.

NATURE OF MANIlATE

CENTRES ICRAF

Mandate defined mainly in terms of:

Discipline (2.1

Resource Management

Cmmdity lies)

Geoyra~hical region

Agro-ecol og i cd zone

Instit.ut.jan-building

Agriculture/forestry social scienceianimal science

M!?T(s)

gl oh1

5 tones in Africa - upland plateau - bimodal higlllattd - humid - sub-humid - semi-arid

a feature highlighted in 1CRAF"s mandate.

lNl.)IA 1I.'Ni/ ICFW Prcqec t ._........._-. -_ __ ., - - _ . .__

'1't-E objwtivo of the pt-cyram-e i-, to c:rnsc2liilate

t.t% rTLkLu1 scientific co1 laba-atiut kttxw I t9w.T

Jndim Lkx.tnci.1 fwr. Agricultural f&sear-ctl (IG’W) XKI

:rCF&F for the axecutim of tit-F? all 1 I id i ;:I

Ccurdinat~ I32sizarcrl-1 Project cn AqrofnrccjCr~~. !?CXIIV

~1' the major- activi kj e-5 incluck t-esEzar cl I r)l aw-~~rq

and prcwisi.m of informaticm by 1CRW.

Ghana/ J.CIFSF F’roj 6.t ..I.. .- _...- -..- .--.. __ _._

I”\cx~r are underway to expand tk netmri: Co C.C.WEV-

Ethiopian Highlands art0 tfx highlNtds 4 t?astctn

Zaire.

l-he major ob,jectives of +.3x? pro.ieCt at-e Co ckve1.o~)

qroforestry t~bolqies to increase ayrici\‘l t\ w-al

prductiu? thraqh sail ferti Lit\i managwwnt. and prnvi.siu!

of wpplel7E?-l tary (jW 5edst3-t fo livclstad: 1 l-4 .tt L.’

nmize/livstnck syst.633 in eastern Zambi a. 1 I-K? otJlel’

(~d:tie~tiws at-c:

?

-. Train nakimal ximltists in aqroforest-.r-y rCzdI*c~~;

i’h ob.iectlm ef t.his praj=t ate to prumotc dlscr~ss.~cr~?

‘-VI d r-arch in alley farming. tcl test ckV,ciopt3.1

tfxhlalugie5 dCt--QSS diverse ef~vir*cnmtzt3~s, N Ill t 0

AFNETA

AFRENA

BAFC

CATIE

CGIAR

COLLPRO

D&D

Alley Farming Network for Africa (IITAiILCA/ICRAF)

Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa (ICRAF)

Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council

Centro Agronomico Tropical para Investigaciones y Ensenanza

Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

Collaborative Projects Division (ICRAP)

Diagnosis and design

FAO

ICAR _.

ICRAF

ICRISAT

IDRC

IHSS

IICA

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

..+X&~on.Council for Agricultlrrol Research

International Council for Research in Agroforestry

International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

International Development Research Centre (Canada)

International Horticultural Science Society

International Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture, Costa Rica

IITA

ILCA

International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

International Livestock Centre for Africa

INFOCOMM Information and Cormnunications Division (ICPAF)

ISC ICRISAT Sahelian Centre

IUFRO

KEFRI

International Union of Forestry Research Organizations

Kenya Forestry Research Institute

MPT

NFTA

Multipurpose trees

Nitrogen-Fixing Tree Association

RDD

SEARCA

TAC

Research Development Division (ICRAF)

South East Asian Regional Council for Agriculture, Philippines

Technical Advisory Committee

ACRONYMS