Portfolio Communications Budget

Overview:  Estimated Communications and Engagement budgets across the portfolio for 2026 are provided at USD 1.3 million ranging from largest allocation of USD 320,000 for Multifunctional Landscapes, Gender Equality & Inclusion at USD 233,000 and Genebanks at USD 187,000. Overall portfolio expenditure is primarily concentrated on staff costs (USD 625,000) and events (USD 363,000), with comparatively smaller allocations to media and content (USD 237,000) and to travel and other costs (USD 72,000).

Program and Accelerators 2026 Communication and Engagement Plans: Pending Chief Scientist Approval

• Better Diets and Nutrition – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Breeding for Tomorrow – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Capacity Sharing – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Digital Transformation – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Food Frontiers and Security – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Gender Equality and Inclusion – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Genebank – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Multifunctional Landscapes – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Policy Innovation –  Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Scaling for Impact – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

• Sustainable Farming – Communication and Engagement Plan for 2026

Guiding Questions within the Evidence and Learning Enabler  

• What have we learned from MELIA findings, stakeholder feedback, and the Reflect and Reporting phases that requires changes to plans or priorities? 

• What assumptions, pathways, or indicators in the ToC need updating based on new evidence or context? 

• Where are the critical gaps, outliers, or uncertainties, and how should they be addressed in the updated plans? 

• How do proposed adjustments strengthen alignment between activities, outcomes, and intended impact? 

• What evidence supports continuing, adjusting, or discontinuing specific approaches? 

• How do we ensure planned changes are effective and measurable? 

Guiding Questions within the W1/2 Funding and Financial Planning 

• Are proposed budget adjustments aligned with revised priorities and evidence from the Reflect and Reporting phases? 

• How well do updated PORBs reflect lessons learned and emerging needs? 

• Where are adjustments to budget allocations required to strengthen delivery and impact? 

• How do revised budgets align with the final approved envelopes and guidance? 

• How do we ensure financial planning remains flexible and responsive going forward? 

Guiding Questions within the W3/Bilateral Data Enabler  

• Should any W3/bilateral projects be shifted to different results in the ToC, or to a different Program/Accelerator, to better reflect a) actual results of a project, or b) a shift in direction of the project or Program/Accelerator? 

• Does the Program/Accelerator MELIA Plan still accurately reflect the known, planned MELIA studies of mapped W3/bilaterals? Are there additional efficiencies that could be gained, or gaps to be filled, in light of any new information about planned W3/bilateral MELIA studies?  

• Given updated budgets (for both pooled and non-pooled-funded work), as well as updated ToCs and MELIA Plans, are the two funding streams still coherently and efficiently aligned to planned results and strategic priorities? 

• What synergies or coordination opportunities could be strengthened in future cycles?

Guiding Questions within the Risk Management Enabler 

• What new or heightened risks have emerged from the Reflect and Reporting phases? 

• How should mitigation strategies be adjusted based on recent risk outcomes? 

• How do updated risks affect priorities, deliverables, or resource allocation? 

• How are key risks and mitigation actions reflected in updated planning documents? 

Guiding Questions within the Demand and Scaling Readiness Enabler  

• Based on evidence from the Reflect and Reporting phases, which innovations should have their scaling pathways responsibly accelerated, adjusted, paused, or downscaled, and what evidence supports these decisions?  

• What changes to scaling strategies, delivery models, or partnerships would help improve effectiveness, inclusiveness, sustainability, or system-level impact in light of observed performance?  

• How should Theories of Change, MELIA plans, and indicators be updated to reflect revised scaling ambitions, assumptions, and pathways informed by learning? What resource reallocations would best support prioritized scaling pathways, and how can W1/W2, W3, and bilateral funding be aligned to enable effective and responsible scaling?  

• How do revised scaling decisions respond to contextual shifts, emerging risks, and unintended consequences identified during reflection and reporting?  

• How will scaling progress, adaptations, and risks be monitored during implementation to support continued learning, adaptive management, and constructive engagement with the Scaling for Impact Program team going forward? 

Guiding Questions within the Demand and Scaling Readiness Enabler  

• Based on evidence from the Reflect and Reporting phases, which innovations should have their scaling pathways responsibly accelerated, adjusted, paused, or downscaled, and what evidence supports these decisions?  

• What changes to scaling strategies, delivery models, or partnerships would help improve effectiveness, inclusiveness, sustainability, or system-level impact in light of observed performance?  

• How should Theories of Change, MELIA plans, and indicators be updated to reflect revised scaling ambitions, assumptions, and pathways informed by learning? What resource reallocations would best support prioritized scaling pathways, and how can W1/W2, W3, and bilateral funding be aligned to enable effective and responsible scaling?  

• How do revised scaling decisions respond to contextual shifts, emerging risks, and unintended consequences identified during reflection and reporting?  

• How will scaling progress, adaptations, and risks be monitored during implementation to support continued learning, adaptive management, and constructive engagement with the Scaling for Impact Program team going forward? 

1. What is meant by Country of Implementation?

“Country of implementation” refers to the location(s) in which the activities are primarily carried out and which are the focus of the resulting deliverables, regardless of the location of the implementing organization or personnel.

2. What is meant by Location of Benefit?

“Location of benefit” refers to the location(s) where benefits resulting from CGIAR work are reasonably expected to occur. These benefits do not need to be directly achieved by CGIAR. May be defined nationally, regionally, or globally.

3. In selecting a Location of Benefit/Impact does it imply that funds must be spent in that country in the PORB?

No. Selecting a country for Benefit/Impact does not determine where funds must be spent. Where funds will be spent will be based on the country of implementation. However, in this case, the Location of Benefit refers to the location(s) where benefits resulting from CGIAR work are reasonably expected to occur. The benefits do not need to be directly achieved by CGIAR and may be defined at national, regional, or global levels.

4. Where should Country of Implementation be recorded?

Country of Implementation is captured directly from the ToC at the KPI level for each HLO and reflected in the PORB. This information is then synchronized with the Anaplan section of the Planning Module, where Programs and Accelerators are required to indicate the percentage allocation of the budget for each country.

5. Is Location of Benefit required at the output level?

No. Location of Benefit is not required High Level Output. Only Country of Implementation is required at the High Level Output/KPI level.

6. Why is the distinction between  Country of Implementation and Location of Benefit necessary?

The distinction between Country of Implementation and Location of Benefit is necessary to support subsequent financial reporting where donors and governments require both dimensions. Country of Implementation ensures budget allocation can be traceable while Country of Benefit/Impact helps identify who ultimately benefits from CGIAR investments during financial reporting. 

7. How should KPIs and outputs be geographically tagged?

High Level Outputs and Key Performance Indicators should be tagged in the ToC at the national level using Country of Implementation. The information is then synchronized to the PRMS Planning Module. 

8. Can outcomes and impacts still be recorded as global or regional?

Location of Benefit refers to the location(s) where benefits resulting from CGIAR work are reasonably expected to occur. These benefits do not need to be directly achieved by CGIAR. As such, they may be defined at national, regional, or global levels, as they reflect intended impact rather than financial expenditure.

9. How should multiple countries be handled for a single KPI or deliverable?

Multiple countries may be specified for a single KPI where activities will be implemented and corresponding expenditures incurred across those locations. However, the selection of countries should remain meaningful and accurately reflect actual implementation, avoiding overly broad or inflated lists.

10. How should global programs like Genebanks  - which has over 100 countries - handle country tagging?

Implementation should reflect the specific countries where funds are spent. There is no limit to the number of countries that may be included; however, the selection should remain meaningful and accurately represent actual implementation, avoiding overly broad or inflated lists. In contrast, location of benefit/impact may include additional regional and global, particularly in the case of global public goods.

11. How should inconsistencies such as “Global” entries or missing country data under country of implementation be handled?

Current “Global” entries provided for Hight Level Output and Key Performance Indicators should be replaced in the ToC with the specific country (ies) in which an activity will primarily be carried out and where its outputs are delivered or realized. 

12. What should be done if ToC and MELIA entries do not yet align with the updated requirements?

Teams should update ToC entries to accurately reflect Country-level implementation locations and ensure that MELIA studies are aligned with updated location requirement. 

13. Who is responsible for providing country-level implementation data?

P/A Directors are ultimately accountable for the final information provided in their respective PORBs, however the data provided should be done jointly with the Centers to ensure accuracy of the information. 

14. Should staff locations be included when tagging outputs, particularly when staff are based in different countries from where activities are implemented?

Country of implementation aim to allow for traceability of expenses linked to delivery of KPIs. Similarly, aggregated KPI costs generally include staff-related expenses; therefore, staff location should be taken into account when determining the Country of Implementation, as these are key cost drivers linked to the related activities. 

15. Should country information be updated only in the ToC, with the expectation that it will synchronize to the PORB, or are additional updates required directly within the PORB?

Correct. Country of Implementation and Location of Benefit should be reflected in the ToC Board, which is then synchronized to the Planning Module and subsequently to the Anaplan tab of the module. You are then required to indicate the proportional percentage allocation for each country of implementation and location of benefit against the aggregated AoW budget within the Anaplan tab of the planning Module.

16. How should the country of implementation and the location of benefit be determined for Director and PMU-related costs, given that these roles are not tied to specific delivery geographies?

Finance Focal Points and Centers are available to support this process. Please note that this information has traditionally been provided by Centers through their finance leads, who are therefore well positioned to guide and assist.

17. How should location tagging be aligned with other requirements, such as financial reporting (Anaplan), projected benefits modelling, and donor requests for country-level data?

"The source of truth for location tagging is the ToC board, which then synchronizes to the PRMS Planning Module and subsequently to the Anaplan tab within the Planning Module. In providing the Country of Implementation and Location of Benefit, consideration should be given to among others the Center-submitted and approved package of deliverables, as well as planned high-level outputs and KPIs, where applicable. 

It should also be noted that Country of Implementation is required for subsequent financial reporting in Anaplan (W1/W2), indicating where spending and activities occur, while Country of Benefit information is used for projected benefits modelling and donor visibility on where benefits accrue (national, regional, or global)."

1. When will the Financial Plan- funder dashboard be updated?

The Financing Plan Dashboard, accessible via the link, is updated on a rolling basis. Each time a funder confirms their contribution, the information is updated accordingly in real time.

2. Are partner budgets delinked from the total AoW budgets? Previously, partner budgets were embedded and distributed across multiple KPIs, which made it difficult for Centers to allocate them accurately. This resulted in double counting and inflated AoW budgets. Could you please clarify how this is now being handled?

Yes, partner allocations are assumed to be embedded within KPI-level budgets and are therefore already included in the total AoW budgets. However, to enhance tracking and transparency, these allocations should also be entered separately in the Partners table within the PORB. As such, the totals in the Partners table do not consolidate into the overall AoW budget totals.

3. Last year, users with assignments across multiple Programs encountered errors when editing PORBs in different tabs within the same browser window. Has this issue been resolved, or should users continue to work in only one tab or Program at a time to avoid potential errors?

The system has been enhanced to allow multiple users to enter data simultaneously without errors. However, we will remain on standby to provide support in case any issues arise.

4. 16th of April is a very short time to finalize on the PORBs given the changes available in the budget and the additional need to carefully consiedr the allocation to centers. Can additional time being provided? 

While the 16 April deadline is understandably tight, the current PORB “adapt” timeline—communicated in February—already provides a structured six-week process and reflects prior planning, including earlier prioritization scenarios, approved PORBs, and the recent “reflect” phase. As such, Programs and Accelerators are not starting from scratch. Extending the timeline at this stage would impact funder expectations and further compress the already limited time available for implementation in 2026. It is therefore recommended to maintain the current schedule, recognizing the 16 April submission as a first draft, with the opportunity to refine and finalize inputs by 30 April.

5. A question has been raised by several teams regarding the administration of the discretionary fund (USD 300,000) currently held under the “unknown centre” category after closure of the PORB. While a portion has already been allocated to specific centres and mapped to KPIs, a significant balance remains unprogrammed and is expected to be utilized as opportunities arise during the year. Clarification is sought on whether these funds will continue to sit with the System Office, and what process centres should follow to access them (e.g., invoicing). Additionally, confirmation is requested on whether transfers below USD 50,000 from the “unknown centre” category to a specific centre require approval from Centres’ DDGRs, or whether such adjustments can be processed directly through the Finance Focal Point and updated in Anaplan.

The administration and use of funds under the “unknown centre” category will follow the established guidance on budget reallocation. These funds will remain with the System Office until they are formally allocated. Any reallocation will require appropriate approvals, including from the Program Director (PD) and, where applicable, the relevant Centre DDGR, and must be coordinated with the Finance Focal Point. All budget movements are to be processed and reflected in Anaplan. And with respect to thresholds, the USD 50,000 limit does not apply to transfers from the “unknown centre” category to a specific centre. Please note that this guidance is not limited to discretionary funds only. It applies broadly to all allocations held in “unknown centre” pending allocation to centres. That is the transfers, whether related to discretionary funding, AoW/PMU budget pending allocations, or any other items held under “unknown” will follow the standard reallocation process as outlined above. Lastly, given that the Finance Focal Point team is now fully constituted and has access to Anaplan, adjustments can be executed directly within the system in coordination with the team as assigned for each Program and Accelerators as appropriate. Further refinement of this guidance will be provided as implementation progresses. | 2025 PORB Implementation Guidance on Allowable Budget Adjustments