The Future of CGIAR and Public-Private Partnerships
In past posts, I have explored the importance of CGIAR in global agricultural research. It is not only the largest global agricultural innovation network, but it also a vital part of international economies, with a portfolio budget of US$900 million annually and over 9,000 employees across 89 nations. CGIAR is no small venture.
In their current funding campaign, they estimate the need to double their annual budget to $2 billion by 2030. They argue that for every USD $1 invested in agricultural research and development, investors already generate USD $10 worth of benefits to smallholder farmers, vulnerable communities, and ecosystems for every dollar invested. This is a remarkable return on investment, but will the benefits reach those most in need, and can CGIAR realistically attain this goal?
Agricultural research is expensive; it is a long-term investment, often invisible to the public until a crisis strikes. Perhaps this is why governments are cutting back: research doesn’t produce quick wins, it’s hard to sell to voters, and it often addresses global rather than national issues. As noted earlier, the long-term nature of agricultural R&D makes it vulnerable to short-term funding cycles. So, if governments are retreating, who will fund the future of food research?
The Funding Crunch
As a non-profit, CGIAR relies on donor nations and foundations, with a mix of unrestricted and project-specific funding. But donors are increasingly earmarking funds for short-term projects rather than providing stable, flexible support.
The OECD projects a 9% to 17% drop in official development assistance (ODA) by 2025, with cuts expected to continue until 2027. Major donors are scaling back, including:
- United States: Contributions to ODA are projected to fall by more than 50% between 2023 and 2026, from $64B to $28B. This directly impacts CGIAR’s Trust Fund, to which the U.S. contributed $656M as of 2022.
- United Kingdom: Reduced its aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income, cutting CGIAR allocations.
- France & Germany: France is set to cut its aid budget by 37% in 2025, while Germany, once a strong supporter of CGIAR, is projected to cut ODA by 26% from 2023 levels by 2026. But nations are reported to be diverting funds toward defence and domestic priorities.
These reductions translate into closed labs, stalled projects, and disrupted careers for researchers worldwide.
The Public-Private Dilemma
There is a lot of criticism and skepticism when it comes to public-private partnerships. The risk that profit motives override public good is real; private funders may push research toward profitable crops or regions, leaving smallholder farmers behind. Yet without private involvement, funding gaps widen. Plus, this is a cynical outlook to have; we have seen that public-private partnerships can have great and positive impacts.
Examples can be seen in the medical world. We wouldn’t have a number of vaccines, like those for COVID-19, without private investment. In agriculture, Golden Rice, a vitamin A-fortified rice variety developed to combat child malnutrition, was made possible by both public and private investments. The challenge is not whether to engage the private sector, but how to set guardrails that ensure equity, access, and alignment with CGIAR’s mission and other research facilities. Private does not have to be a bad thing.
Global Pressures on Global Science
As noted earlier, the long-term nature of agricultural R&D makes it vulnerable to short-term funding cycles. Without stable investment, the breakthroughs that underpin global food security, like drought-resistant wheat or climate-smart rice, may never reach farmers. And we will only fall further into our global challenges.
CGIAR’s focus is long-term, but global aid is increasingly redirected toward immediate crises: conflicts, refugee support, health emergencies, rather than agricultural R&D that takes decades to bear fruit. It is hard to say, “don’t increase your nations’ funding of Food Aid to those in war zones and malnourished regions”, and keep funds flowing to other areas like CGIAR when the news is daily covering the need for food relief. With limited funds, CGIAR must differentiate itself by showing measurable impact and alignment with donor priorities like climate adaptation and resilience.
What’s the Future of CGIAR and non-profits?
There is growing concern about operational sustainability at CGIAR. Funding cuts are forcing CGIAR to scale back precisely when global food security crises demand expansion. If this trend continues, the world risks losing one of its few independent backbones for long-term agricultural research, leaving a vacuum that fragmented, profit-driven efforts may not fill, especially for smallholder farmers and food-insecure regions.
In response, CGIAR is restructuring its programs, deepening regional partnerships, and diversifying beyond traditional aid donors. This could sharpen its focus on developing nations and their climate and nutrition priorities. But the transition will be uneven; some projects will be lost, progress may stall, and affiliated researchers may struggle to keep their work afloat.
Ultimately, sustaining CGIAR’s mission will require rethinking global funding models with a governments, private sector, and civil society balance that protects public goods research. Because the question isn’t whether we can afford to fund CGIAR, but whether we can afford not to.
