Landscape Alliance

Legal name: Center for International Forestry Research

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
980163602
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bogor, VA, Indonesia
Phone
+62-251-8622-622
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Pollution Abatement and Control Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,574,398
Expenses
$49,131,432
Assets
$44,500,049
Liabilities
$37,801,728

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT NASI (COO, DIRECTOR GENERAL & TRUSTEE): $376,164 total reported compensation
  • KUMAR TUMULURU (DIRECTOR - CORPORATE SERVICES): $272,027 total reported compensation
  • VINCENT GITZ DIRECTOR (PROGRAM & PLATFORMS/LATIN AMERICA): $251,986 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve human well-being, protect the environment, and increase equity through research on forests, trees, and landscapes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Climate change, energy and low-carbon development: to avoid catastrophic climate change, society needs to both end its dependence on fossil fuels and pursue low-emission development through sustainable land management, including agroforestry, ecosystem conservation and restoration, and a transition to sustainable economy models.all cifor-icraf research contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation by helping to keep trees in the ground, increase tree cover, and find the best tree species for local conditions. The 'climate team's' research focuses on forests conservation, on reducing emissions from deforests and forest degradation (redd+), on the sustainable management of forests and wetlands, on developing sustainable bioenergy solutions, and on bioeconomy transitions. Conserving and sustainably managing carbon-dense peatlands and wetlands is one large area of our work. Through all of this, we aim to support our partners in the development of effective, cost-efficient, and equitable climate policies and practices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 73
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $160.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 79.4%; rating input score 79; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 53.8%; rating input score 54; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 85.2% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $41.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $376K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $239K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.