CGIAR is the only worldwide partnership addressing agricultural research for development, whose work contributes to the global effort to tackle poverty, hunger and major nutrition imbalances, and environmental degradation.
It is carried out by 15 Centers, that are members of the CGIAR Consortium, in close collaboration with hundreds of partners, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, development organizations and the private sector.
The 15 Research Centers generate and disseminate knowledge, technologies, and policies for agricultural development through the CGIAR Research Programs. The CGIAR Fund provides reliable and predictable multi-year funding to enable research planning over the long term, resource allocation based on agreed priorities, and the timely and predictable disbursement of funds. The multi-donor trust fund finances research carried out by the Centers through the CGIAR Research Programs.
We have almost 10,000 scientists and staff in 96 countries, unparalleled research infrastructure and dynamic networks across the globe. Our collections of genetic resources are the most comprehensive in the world.
What we do
We collaborate with research and development partners to solve development problems. To fulfill our mission we:
- Identify significant global development problems that science can help solve
- Collect and organize knowledge related to these development problems
- Develop research programs to fill the knowledge gaps to solve these development problems
- Catalyze and lead putting research into practice, and policies and institutions into place, to solve these development problems
- Lead monitoring and evaluation, share the lessons we learn and best practices we discover;
- Conserve, evaluate and share genetic diversity
- Strengthen skills and knowledge in agricultural research for development around the world
Making a difference
We act in the interests of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. Our track record spans four decades of research.
Our research accounted for US$673 million or just over 10 percent of the US$5.1 billion spent on agricultural research for development in 2010. The economic benefits run to billions of dollars. In Asia, the overall benefits of CGIAR research are estimated at US$10.8 billion a year for rice, US$2.5 billion for wheat and US$0.8 billion for maize.
It has often been cited that one dollar invested in CGIAR research results in about nine dollars in increased productivity in developing countries.
Sweeping reforms for the 21st century
Political, financial, technological and environmental changes reverberating around the globe mean that there are many opportunities to rejuvenate the shaky global food system. Developments in agricultural and environmental science, progress in government policies, and advances in our understanding of gender dynamics and nutrition open new avenues for producing more food and for making entrenched hunger and poverty history.
The sweeping reforms that brought in the CGIAR Consortium in 2010 mean we are primed to take advantage of these opportunities. We are eagerly tackling the ever more complex challenges in agricultural development. We are convinced that the science we do can make even more of a difference. To fulfill our goals we aim to secure US$1 billion in annual investments to fund the current CGIAR Research Programs.
CGIAR has embraced a new approach that brings together its strengths around the world and spurs new thinking about agricultural research for development, including innovative ways to pursue scientific work and the funding it requires. CGIAR is bringing donors together for better results and enabling scientists to focus more on the research through which they develop and deliver big ideas for big impact. As a result, CGIAR is more efficient and effective, and better positioned than ever before to meet the development challenges of the 21st century.
We are no longer the ‘Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research’. In 2008 we underwent a major transformation, to reflect this and yet retain our roots we are now known simply as CGIAR.
Members:
Resources
Displaying 11051 - 11055 of 12598The organizational structures for community-based natural resources management in Southern Africa
Throughout Southern Africa there has been a move to decentralize natural resource management (NRM). Decentralization has taken many forms, resulting in different organizational structures for NRM. Fourteen case studies from eight countries can be classed into four types, depending on the key organizations for NRM: (1) district-level organizations; (2) village organizations supported by sectoral departments (e.g. Village Forest Committees); (3) organizations or authorities outside the state hierarchy (e.g.
The secondary forest situation in Sri Lanka: a review
Most forests in Sri Lanka are secondary, are mostly confined to the dry and intermediate zones of the country, and arise out of swidden agriculture. The majority of secondary forests which regenerate after swidden farming in the dry parts of Sri Lanka are grown from vegetative parts, that are from remaining roots and stumps. Secondary forests provide numerous products of importance to local people. They also help to bridge seasonal gaps in livelihoods.
The rights and the realities
Mr. Situma Mwichebe talking to Ann Mikia about the reality of water rights in Kenya.
The price of development?
Around ten years ago the government of the Gambia earmarked a strip of land along the Atlantic coast for tourism development. More recently, land in the same area is being used to provide affordable housing for civil servants. The chief of one village affected by these policies describes the problem of land shortage he now faces.
The impacts of decentralisation on forests and forest-dependent communities in Malinau district, East Kalimantan
Malinau District, established through partition in 1999, is the largest district in East Kalimantan and contains some of its largest tracts of forest. With decentralization, the district has sought to generate revenues from its forests, but these efforts have been handicapped by a concurrent lack of institutional capacities to manage rapid forest exploitation and conflicts over claims. Timber extraction and utilization permits (Izin Pemungutan dan Pemanfaatan Kayu or IPPK) have been the main instrument for revenue generation, with 39 IPPK covering 56,000 ha.