TAC's suggested framework for the current round of priority settings has four dimensions. The first relates to choices among the principal undertakings of the System (increasing productivity; protecting the environment; saving biodiversity; improving policies; and strengthening NARS). A second relates to the four production sectors (crops, livestock, forests and fish). The third pertains to the emphasis on one crop versus another (e.g., the relative importance of rice versus cassava). The fourth dimension relates to the Systemwide Programmes, (e.g., the relative importance of slash-and-burn systems versus the rice/wheat based production systems).
Notice that this represents a change from the previous round of priority setting in that the regional dimension (e.g., the relative importance of Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America) has been suppressed. Assuming the Group's endorsement, this will no longer be a separate or independent criterion introduced a priori. Rather a region's priority will emerge from the emphasis on poverty, alternative sources of supply, probabilities of success, and concern for natural resources, among other considerations.
TAC's initial efforts will focus on shaping priorities for each of the four dimensions. Some of that work can be done against a quantitative base. As examples, comparisons among commodities can be so based, along with some of the work for comparison among sectors. Much of TAC's work, however, must rely on qualitative assessments and judgements, albeit within a systematic framework. TAC will continue to look to expert counsel from a variety of sources in all of these arenas. (See also the note on Process). And we expect to have tangible arguments improving transparency where intuition and judgement have played a major role in decision making.
Projects - In recent presentations TAC has referred to a future in which Centre activities will be described in the form of projects. Preparations continue as Centres develop the infrastructure required to effectively employ the project framework. Some have completed the work, indeed some have been employing the framework for several years, others are still in process. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat will continue to monitor progress in the expectation of an early completion of a systemwide approach.
TAC adds that it does not expect to set priorities and to allocate resources at the project level. TAC's impression is that Centre management, supported by the critical specialized knowledge of Centre staff, is best able to utilize the project framework for allocating centre resources. At the same time, TAC sees the Centres' project portfolios as tools useful in its own work.
