ispc observations on the crp pre-proposals & what needs to be done

ISPC observations on

the CRP pre-proposals &

what needs to be done

Rome November 2015

Context of reviews 1

Earlier reviews

• ISPC reviewed first round of CRPs over ~ 3 years

• ISPC reviewed all Extension proposals simultaneously

New SRF & SDGs

• Results Framework developed primarily by donors

• Pilot prioritisation across sub-IDOs

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Rome November 2015


Task Force

• Need to simplify current complexity of the System as a whole

• Need for more engagement between System entities in activities such as Foresight, Science Quality etc

Funding

• Decreases in Windows 1 and 2 funding



• Evaluation reports plus overview from IEA on then current evaluations

• Some scepticism on whether the ‘Windsor’ portfolio could deliver something new and exciting

• Tight time-scale for everyone

• A continuing debate (including amongst donors) of the positioning of the CGIAR on the R4D continuum

• Yet, increased need for research to show potential for delivering impact


A4NH CCAFS PIM WLE

Ge

ne

ba

nk DCLAS Fish FTA Livestock Maize Rice RTB Wheat

CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B

Overall analysis

Theory of Change and

Impact Pathway

Governance and

Management

A4NH CCAFS PIM WLE

Ge

ne

ba

nk DCLAS Fish FTA Livestock Maize Rice RTB Wheat

CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B

Overall analysis

A A B B

N

A B B A B B B A B

Theory of Change and

Impact Pathway A A B C

N

A B B B C A A A A

Governance and

Management A A A C

N

A C C B C A B A A

What do the ISPC ratings mean?


• Cs at CRP level – did not mean that ISPC think that research in that area, by that team should not be supported – it did mean that the ISPC thought there was a lack of coherence as a programme of quality research targeted on the SLOs and not everything was justified

• Ds (only at Flagship level) mean that we did not think there was sufficient justification for the research proposed to be a stand-alone flagship but not necessarily that research in that area shouldn’t happen

• Cs at Flagship level meant that proposed research needed to be ‘reconceptualised and rearticulated’

Headlines on ratings


• ISPC put a strong emphasis on ‘rigour and credibility of scientific arguments’, ‘ToC and Impact pathways’ and ‘scientific leadership’ at CRP level

and

• ‘Strategic relevance and ToC’, ‘Scientific quality’ and ‘Comparative advantage’ at FP level

• A ‘C’ rating did not mean that the Flagship was thought to be unnecessary – clusters could be incorporated elsewhere

Headline comments 1

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Washington November 2015

General

• Significant evidence of lessons learned – though still lacking in some CRPs

• Improvement in many ToCs and Impact Pathways

• Gender higher profile but still much to do as for other CCTs

SRF related

• Every sub-IDO was addressed with X-cutting sub-IDOs most targeted

• Unrealistic targets in many places and little explanation

Headline comments continued

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Washington November 2015

Efficiency

• Some duplication in terms of scaling-up and foresight

• Some Centers involved in fewer CRPs but not yet analyzed in detail

• Cross-cutting issues such as gender co-ordinated at multiple levels – within Flagships, by specific Flagships, Gender platform, Gender network

Budget

• Total portfolio increases from USD1.047 billion per year to 1.345 billion for 2017

• Many Flagships with budgets > USD 100 million

Slides from Paris

Meeting on portfolio hosted by ISPC one day after commentaries were sent out

~ 46 attendees from Centers, CRPs, CO, donors, FO

Discussion on what needed to be worked on (after vote) – 5 action points

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Paris September 2015

Systems research approach

• Evidence of research from 3 systems programs being integrated

• A start to moving towards agri-food systems but some way to go (understandably)


Agri-Food Systems

Action point: A common understanding of agri-food systems is needed in order to operationalize them, but there will be various approaches best suited to different CRPs, commodities and situations. Further guidance will be provided in the full proposal template, but the approaches adopted must be explained and justified. Horizontal integration on cross-cutting issues is also essential.


Integrated research portfolio

• Start made with Global Integrating Programs but need for justified prioritization of links

• Will new platforms sunset existing entities?

• Who should lead on integration?


Integrated research portfolio

Action points: The full proposals should highlight the lessons learned regarding integration across the system. For the new GI CRPs, integration with AFS CRPs can be phased-in. More guidance on integration should be provided in the full proposal template. Two of the CCPs have been supported by the ISPC, but doubts remain about the need for the other two.


Comparative/competitive/

collaborative advantage


• The CAs of the private sector and NARS are changing with respect to the CGIAR

• Lack of evidence of CRPs recognizing this - little mention of alternative suppliers

• Part of scientific foresight – who should do it?

Comparative/competitive/

collaborative advantage


Action points: Clear definitions of comparative, competitive and collaborative advantages are required, and should be included in the template for full proposals. Quantitative metrics should be used to measure differences if possible. Changes in relative advantages will occur as others evolve, and these must be monitored, and future advantages planned as part of foresight. The webpage on the workshop on youth and agriculture should be shared. The template for full proposals should contain more guidance on incorporating youth issues

Scaling up and impact

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Paris Sept 2015

• Lots of partners but description of partnership strategies disappointing

• Big investment in scaling-up but it is not an add-on

• How much is funded by W1/2?

• Trade-offs between SLOs not mentioned enough – this is a risk for delivery of SRF

Scaling up and impact

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Paris Sept 2015

Action points: We are reaching a consensus on what the CG should focus on, namely the science of scaling rather than the scaling itself. The scaling is done by our partners, but not in a linear relationship whereby we pass on the research products to our partners for scaling. Scaling is part of the planning, the design and the location of the research. There is no one-size-fits-all, because scaling is very situation- and location-specific. The full proposals need to provide explanations and justifications for the scaling approaches used.

Respondents

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC, Rome, November 2015

• 12 donors who contributed to W1/W2 (and W3/bilateral), 11 donors who only contributed to W3/bilateral

CGIAR Fund in 2014 W1 – $ 189.2 mn W2 – $ 110.6 mn

W3/bilateral – $ 575.4 mn* Total – $ 852.6 mn*

AfDb EC IDRC Sweden

Australia FAO IFAD Switzerland

Austria France Italy Turkey

Bangladesh FARA Japan UK

Canada Germany Netherlands USA

CIRAD GIZ Nigeria WFP

Denmark GRDC Norway World Bank

Respondents represent W1/W2 – $ 277.5

(92.6%) Total – $ 629.5

(73.8%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

4.3

5.1

4.2

10

.2

5.2

B.2

A.3

A.4

4.1

7.2

10

.1

B.1

2.2

B.3

9.2

C.3

D.3

3.4

8.1

4.5

D.1

D.2

4.4

2.1

1.2

C.2

1.1

D.4

C.1

9.1

10

.3/A

.1

A.5

3.3

A.2

3.1

8.3

3.2

6.2

8.2

6.1

9.3

7.1

5.3

C.4

7.3

Sco

re (

Po

ints

we

igh

ted

pro

po

rtio

nal

ly t

o W

1/W

2 b

ud

get)

Sub-IDO

W1/W2 Donor Priorities (weighted by budget, n=12)

Appropriate reg. environment for food safety

Consistently lower priority sub-IDOs Consistently high priority sub-IDOs

Enhanced genetic gain

Closed yield gaps

Enhanced adaptive capacity

Reduced pre- & post-harvest losses

Reduced livestock & fish disease risks

Gender equitable control of productive assets

Increased safe use of inputs

Enrichment of plant and animal biodiversity

Conducive environment for managing shocks and vulnerability

Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods

Improved water quality