CGIAR Review of Total Compensation

CGIARReview of Total Compensation

May 10, 2004

Nationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II

Research Number Ave base Ave age Ave years Number Ave base Ave age Ave years

Level salary in Center salary in Center

Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

CGIAR Review of Total Compensation

CGIAR Review of Total Compensation


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

BackgroundApproachSurvey Results for Phase 1DiversityDisclosure PrinciplesNext Steps


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

BackgroundBackgroundNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

CGIAR ExCo concluded at its May 2003 meeting that: “The Secretariat working with CBC, should prepare a paper of compensation structures and levels and mechanisms for ensuring transparency.

Compensation data on the CGIAR should be compared with those from appropriate comparator organizations.

The CGIAR data should be enriched with the expansion of the study to include compensation packages for locally recruited staff. ”


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Terms of Reference

• Drafted in consultation with CBC • Approved in January 2004 by ExCo

Review was divided into 4 Phases

• Phase 1-Review of Compensation Structures and Mechanisms for Ensuring Transparency of Internationally Recruited Staff (IRS)

• Phase 2- Comparison of CGIAR Compensation package for IRS with the Market

• Phase 3- Review of CGIAR Compensation Structures for Nationally Recruited Staff (NRS)

• Phase 4- Integrated Results Report


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Overall ApproachOverall ApproachNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

• Governance of Project: Steering Group

• Collaborative and Technical Support:Focal points from each Center, appointed by DG’sSAS-HR Director and G & D Leader

• Professional Anchor: Sandra Lawrence for overall coordination, technical advice and quality control

• Survey and analysis: Persis Mathias, Project Leader from Hewitt Associates, Malaysia


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Overall Compensation Philosophyfor IRSOverall Compensation Philosophyfor IRS


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

To internationally recruit the best qualified staff

• To do so, need to address:Often remote location of centerNeed for enhanced securityLimited opportunity for spouse employmentUprooting of families from home countryPolicies to maintain close contact, both professionally and personally to home country in view of term appointments

• These factors affect the design of overall package of salary, allowance and benefits


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Phase 1- Survey of Compensation LevelsPhase 1- Survey of

Compensation LevelsNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Objective

• To collect and analyze compensation

cash, benefits & administration

information across the centers and

system office of CGIAR

• To cover research, administrative

service and management levels


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Scope Scope Nationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Mapping• IRS mapped to 9 Hewitt based CGIAR

composite levelsCash compensation

• Actual minimum, median & maximum base salary data

• Bonuses• Other cash payments

Benefits• All employee benefits

Salary administration• Compensation philosophy & structures


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Process and Methodology

SURVEY PLANNINGSURVEY

PLANNING

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEY ADMINISTRA

TION

SURVEY ADMINISTRA

TION

SURVEY ANALYSISSURVEY

ANALYSIS

SURVEY DELIVERYSURVEY

DELIVERY

Planning

- Finalize scope

- Develop and ratify

level descriptors

- Establish project

milestones

- Establish center focal

points

Finalized customized questionnaires (Based

on ILRI study)

Level Equivalence via Hewitt’s

level descriptors

Electronic data

collection, Data entry

Sent and explained

the questionnai

res to all the Centers

Data verification

Data Clarification

- Cash

- Benefits

Data Analysis

Preliminary Analysis

ReportGeneration

Report Presentatio

n

Communication and

verification of Level Mapping Report

Filled in benefit

questionnaires to

centers that

participated in ILRI

study


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Hewitt/CGIAR Research Level Indicators

Hewitt/CGIAR Research Level Indicators


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Focus on the Role in terms of degree of challenge/complexity in:

Scientific ResearchResource ManagementBuilding collaborations and partnerships

Other indicative dimensions included• Qualifications & experience• Designation/ Position title• Quantifiable dimensions


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

CGIAR Composite Research

Level 3


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Creation & generation of ideas/solutions for new research areas. Highly innovative research. Developing & linking new tools and methods/ new innovations in one large complex project or several disciplinary areas & operating projects. High level development work leading to a defined product. Exacting & precise science.

Scientific ResearchScientific Research

Resource ManagementResource Management

Direction from supervisor/s is largely through planning & direction. Overall resource management. Fairly high level of leadership in the conceptual development of research projects. Oversight of large budgets and expenditures.

Plan and play a major role in securing project funding. May be involved with complex reporting for multiple donors. Responsible for overall resource mobilization for projects one is leading, including initiating proposals for large scale long term projects

Scientists at this level may carry significant management responsibility or else be recognized as a senior in providing intellectual input and disciplinary expertise to programs/projects.

Focus on Role: Degree of challenge / complexityFocus on Role: Degree of challenge / complexity

Building collaborations and partnershipsBuilding collaborations and partnerships


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

CGIAR Composite Research Level 3

Qualification & experienceQualification & experience

Other Indicative DimensionsOther Indicative Dimensions

Quantifiable dimensionsQuantifiable dimensions

Indicative designations/ titlesIndicative designations/ titles


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Doctoral course in the assigned subject area Post doctoral experience of 15 – 20 years Scientific & Development Recognition

Financial Responsibility Resource Mobilization People Management

Project Leader Senior Scientists


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Base Salary Base Salary Nationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

• Range of Median Base Salary• Shows base salary paid across all

Centers and the System office at Minimum, Maximum, Median and Mean of each Level across centers

• Base salary is the actual annual amount paid to individuals based on their level of responsibility

• Mean is the average of all individual salaries and median is the 50th percentile


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Overview Range of Median Base Salary

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Research 1

Research 2

Research 3

Research 4

Services 1

Services 2

Services 3

Mgmt 1

Mgmt 2

Figures in USD 000's per annum as of Dec 2003

Legend

Median Mean

Min Max


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Total Compensation Comparisons

Total Compensation Comparisons


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

• Variations and differences come to light when one looks at the over view of compensation and the method of delivery- cash allowance vs. benefit

• Some benefits are paid as cash allowances, others are policies

• In order to approximate total compensation, added all cash payments, quantifiable benefits, estimated pension contribution and cost of insurances


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Allowance and Benefits

Base Salary Annual Base Salary A A A

Rent Allowance A A

Transport / Mobility Allowance A A

Consolidated Allowance A

Responsibility Allowance A A

Medical check/ Dental A

Other Allowance 1- A

Professional Development A

Annual Variable Bonus (Sp.

Scheme for a Function)A

Education Allowance A B A

Home Leave Allowance A B B

Hardship Allowance A B A

Cost of Living Allowance A

Medical Plan B B B

Insurance B B B

Pension B B B

Housing A B

Car B B

Loans B B

Fixed Allowances

Other Allowances &/ or Benefits

Total Fixed Compensation

Total Compensation

Performance Bonus

X Z

CG Centers

Components of payY

Comparison of 3 Centers


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Overview of Median Total Compensation

Figures in USD 000's per annum as of Dec 2003

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Research 1

Research 2

Research 3

Research 4

Services 1

Services 2

Services 3

Mgmt 1

Mgmt 2

Min Max

Legend

Median Mean


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Benefit PoliciesBenefit PoliciesNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Benefits were analyzed from a policy perspective

• Housing Assistance

• Children’s Education

• Club Membership

• Relocation Benefits

• Time Off

• Medical Plans: hospitalization and clinical plans

• Insurance: Life and Disability

• Pension & Gratuity

• Travel Assistance

• Vacation Travel

• Center Provided Car

Overall policies for benefits are similar but, -variations in plan design details

-different delivery methods across benefits


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Example of Variation in Plan Detail – Home Leave

Example of Variation in Plan Detail – Home LeaveNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Staff, spouse and:

• Authorized dependents below 23 years of age (2 Centers)

• Dependent and resident children below 24 years (2)

• Eligible dependents up to 21 years of age (3)

• Dependent resident children up to grade 12 (1)

• Spouse or domestic partner, resident children up to 18 years of age (1)

• All dependents below the age of 26 (1)

• 4 children (1)

• Dependents resident at duty station (1)

• Whole family provided staff also takes leave (1)

• Spouse or domestic partner and dependent children (1)


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Center Pay Structures N o . o f E mp lo ye e s

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 01 001 1 01 2 01 3 01 4 01 5 0

Wo rld F ish WA R D A IWMI IP G R I IC R IS A T IL R I IR R I C IMMY T IIT A C IF O R C IA T C IP IC A R D A IC R A F

Internationally Recruited Staff Regionally Recruited Staff

A n n ual R even ue

0

2 0,000,000

4 0,000,000


N o. of O ffi c es

0

2 0

4 0


Base Salary

Total Cash

TCC

TFP0

5

10

Personal contac t in other companies Partic ipation in survey sponsored by other company No reference Sponsored compensation survey Published surveys Others

0

5

10

15

CGIAR Centres Government Organisations Advanced Research Organisations Private Sector International Development Organisations Others

0

5

10

15

Market where HQ is located Regional market Nationality of the international staff Global market Local market Others

0

5

10

By a fixed percentage Based on market references (market averages) On management disc retion Others

0

5

10

15

Additional Benefits Higher positioning of Base Additional Allowances Others

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Broad bands/ grades Individual market ref points T radit ional sal st ructure No structure


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

LocationsLocationsNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Location Spread

• Internationally recruited staff are spread across 62 countries

• At some locations as many as 8 centers have staff


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Locations where Internationally Recruited Staff are:

Locations CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRAF ICRISAT IITA ILRI IPGRI IRRI IWMI WARDAWorld Fish

TOTAL

Afghanistan 2

Australia 1

Bangladesh 3

Benin 1

Belgium 0

Bolivia 2

Brazil 2

Burkina Faso 1

Cambodia 1

Cameroon 4

China 4

Colombia 3

Costa Rica 2

Congo 1

Ecuador 1

Egypt 2

Ethiopia 4

France 2

Gabon 1

Georgia 1

Ghana 2

Honduras 1

India 5

Indonesia 3

Iran 1

Italy 2

Ivory Cost 1

J ordan 1

Kazakhstan 1

Kenya 8

Korea 1

Laos 4

Malawi 6

Malaysia 2

Mali 2

Morocco 0

Mozambique 3

Nepal 2

New Caledonia 1

Nicaragua 2

Niger 2

Nigeria 3

Pakistan 1

Peru 2

Philippines 7

Rwanda 2

Senegal 2

Solomon Islands 1

South Africa 1

Sri Lanka 1

Syria 2

Tanzania 2

Thailand 3

Tunisia 2


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

DiversityDiversityNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Reviewed base salary differences by

• Gender• Nationality Groupings

•Part 1- Industrialized Countries•Part 11- Developing Countries


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Gender Data - Ratios with Males =100Females Males

Research % Ave base Ave age Ave years % Ave base Ave age Ave years Level salary in Center salary in Center

1 19% 104 34 1 81% 100 39 22 19% 99 42 4 81% 100 44 43 18% 97 46 6 82% 100 49 74 12% 95 47 8 88% 100 52 10

Nationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100Part I Part II

Research Number Ave base Ave age Ave years Number Ave base Ave age Ave years Level salary in Center salary in Center

Part I =100

1 40% 100 34 1 60% 89 41 22 54% 100 41 4 46% 88 46 43 56% 100 47 6 44% 93 51 84 58% 100 51 10 42% 89 52 10


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

To Summarize:To Summarize:Nationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

IRS staff at centers and system office mapped to Hewitt based CGIAR composite 9 level scale – 4 research levels, 3 support levels and 2 management levels

Average total compensation USD62,000 at lowest level R1/S1 to USD 217,000 at highest level M2

Similar benefit policies but diversity in plan design, implementation and delivery methods

Steering Committee recommends that Results should not be posted on CGIAR web until completion of phase II. However, can be made available to members upon request


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Transparency and Disclosure

Transparency and Disclosure


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Objective

To recommend mechanisms to ensure disclosure of the compensation structures while maintaining confidentiality for the individual staff


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Practices of Publicly Funded Organizations

Practices of Publicly Funded Organizations


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

• Reviewed practices of a sample of organizations, including Multilateral Development Banks, UN, European Commission, Bilateral Agencies

• All have public disclosure ofSalary StructuresBenefits PoliciesGeneral Employment Data

• Some are disclosed on external web page, others by request

• Generally do not release any individual’s personal data, the exception being the President or Head of the organization


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

CGIAR Disclosure Principles Steering Group

Recommendations

CGIAR Disclosure Principles Steering Group

RecommendationsNationality Data -Ratios with Part 1 = 100

Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

• Overview of base salary ranges• Benefits policies• Basic employment data, e.G. Overall

number of staff by employment category

• All material updated periodically • No disclosure of individual staff data


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Approach to Phase 2IRS Comparison to Market

Approach to Phase 2IRS Comparison to Market


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

ObjectiveTo provide a comparison of the current compensation structures with those of comparator organizations particularly those engaged in agricultural research, in private and public sectors, world-wide

Content CoverageCompensation packages and salary levels for out

posted staff

Basket of ComparatorsNational Agriculture Research Organizations (5)Private Sector (2)International Organizations (1 or 2)

Target Completion Date: Early 2005


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Approach to Phase 3Nationally Recruited Staff

Approach to Phase 3Nationally Recruited Staff

Objective• To review key aspects of NRS package

Coverage• Comparison of NRS with IRS in terms of

benefits provided• Comparison of NRS to local market based on

existing data in selected locations• Comparison of NRS across centers in a

particular location

Target Completion Date: Early 2005


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Phase 4Integrated Results

Phase 4Integrated Results


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

• Synthesis and Recommendations

• Target Completion Date: End 2005


Part I Part II



Part I =100

1 40 100 34 1 60 89 41 2

2 81 100 41 4 70 88 46 4

3 116 100 47 6 89 93 51 8

4 79 100 51 10 57 89 52 10

Documents

CGIAR Review of Total Compensation