Next Checkpoint: ExCo

The Executive Council (ExCo) will convene from June 4-5 at CIAT in Cali, Colombia, for what will be a pivotal moment in the implementation of the CGIAR Change Initiative. Some have likened the implementation phase of the reform process to a strenuous climb up a steep mountain. ExCo will serve as a critical checkpoint in this ascent, assessing progress to date and determining any changes needed as we continue to approach the summit.

At ExCo, the Transition Management Team (TMT) will present the first concrete proposals for how the central elements of the new CGIAR – the Fund and the Consortium – will operate.  

Acting on behalf of all CGIAR Members, ExCo will evaluate the draft constitution for the new Consortium, the framework for the Fund, the Strategy and Results Framework, Mega Program mock-ups, the accountability framework for the new system and preparations for the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD).

Entering into ExCo, the reform process will benefit from TMT’s strong leadership and the outcomes of recent preparatory meetings, notably the meeting of the Alliance of the CGIAR Centers and the informal London donors meeting. Both of these events, described below, undertook an early evaluation of progress to date and made mid-stream adjustments prior to ExCo. However, several issues remain to be addressed and the debate at ExCo promises to be lively. The next edition of Embracing Change will follow shortly after ExCo with information on key points of the discussion and decisions made.

Consortium Design Milestone Reached

The Alliance of CGIAR Centers reached an important milestone at its recent meeting on May 11-13 in Rome. Alliance leadership (Center Board Chairs and Center Directors General) reached consensus on a workable model for the Consortium constitution and the process for developing the Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) and Mega Programs.

The Alliance examined all aspects of the draft constitution, using a set of key design questions previously discussed with stakeholders on a range of  topics – decision making, fund allocation, Consortium Office financing, the Consortium’s role in organizational redesign and the Consortium Board. The draft constitution reflects unanimous agreement on a number of key Consortium design issues. However, the Center Boards have yet to approve the draft constitution.

With regard to the Strategy and Results Framework and the Mega Programs, the Alliance approved the approach proposed by the Strategy Team, led by Joachim von Braun, Director General of IFPRI. Analytical quantitative and qualitative work on the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs will take place through the end of July, under the leadership of the Strategy Team in cooperation with CGIAR Centers and partners. Consultations with partners and stakeholders will take place during June-August, culminating in a draft for wider circulation and consultation .

With a “green light” from ExCo, the second phase of the Consortium development will pick up speed between June and December, involving further elaboration of the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs, nomination and selection of the inaugural consortium Board, design of the Consortium Office and development of a proposal for shared services. In addition, the cost of the new Consortium will be evaluated and a transition plan developed. Over the coming months, the Alliance will engage with stakeholders, including the donor community, and with the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development process. The Alliance will next meet in late October to prepare for the CGIAR Business meeting in December.

A full report of the Alliance meeting will be available on the Alliance information and communication website soon.

Informal London Donor Workshop Confirms CGIAR Reform is "On Track"

The Transition Management Team (TMT) convened an informal donors' workshop in London on April 29-30 to provide an update on progress with many of the key elements of the new CGIAR.  The meeting allowed for an advanced discussion of items on the agenda for ExCo-16, and feedback from those discussions helped to inform final preparations for ExCo-16. Donors were reassured that the reforms are “on track,” but they expressed some concerns as to whether we are moving quickly enough and whether the changes are deep enough to create a new CGIAR able to meet development goals directly. To learn more about this meeting, visit the change blog http://cgiarchangemanagement.wordpress.com,  where you can hear reactions from those who attended the workshop, including my own reaction to the first day.

Lessons Learned from Developing Mega Program "Mock-Ups"

By John McDermott, Deputy Director General, ILRI

A group of the CGIAR Alliance Deputy Directors General gathered in April to design three mock-ups of what the mega programs of the new CGIAR Consortium might look like and how they might operate.** In developing the three mock-ups, we worked with others to investigate what the mega programs might be, what they might aim to do, how they might operate and what their business model might look like. Each mock-up modeled a different type of mega program: (1) thematic   (improving the resilience of agricultural systems); (2) commodity-based (roots and tubers); and (3) regional (policies in sub-Saharan Africa). We drew the following lessons from this exercise, which are now informing the work of the Strategic Results Framework team as it designs the first portfolio of mega programs.

The three types of mock-ups fared differently across the criteria we employed (for more on that, go to http://alliance.cgxchange.org/mega-program-mock-up-team). For instance, measuring impact is more complex in a thematic than in a commodity-based mega program. A thematic mega program offers major opportunities for innovative frontier and integrative science but is likely to be more difficult to implement than a commodity-based or regional mega program. And partnerships are probably easier to build in a regional mega program because of the rich institutional and collaborative arrangements already existing within sub-regions.

Lessons on programmatic issues

Designing the three mock-ups led us to conclude that the mega programs offer real opportunities for making big leaps in research effectiveness and benefits. By bringing together a critical mass of research activities across disciplines and institutions to tackle high-priority global development challenges, a mega program, like the Roots and Tuber mock-up, could enable scientists working on different crops to jointly tackle common problems, such as lack of improved, disease-free planting material, post-harvest losses and inadequate markets.

Furthermore, the new dynamic partner-rich mega programs will better align research with development investments and actions while also increasing capacity development. They will allow us to draw lessons at the global scale (e.g., schemes for providing payments to the poor for ecosystem services) for tailoring to regional and national research needs (e.g., how to adapt and implement such schemes in “hot spots” identified by a resilience mega program).

Lessons on governance and management

We compared four models for an effective governance and management structure. We found that the model most likely to be efficient and effective in administrative terms would have the Consortium establish a contract with (and allocate funds to) a lead Center of a mega program, with this lead Center representing an association of partners, both internal and external to the CGIAR.

When the Fund starts operating, we believe we’ll need three types of funding mechanisms to implement mega programs effectively. First, we’ll need to coordinate and align existing research funded through Centre funding allocations with the business plan of a mega program. Second, research funded through allocations managed by the Consortium and targeted at joint research efforts will need to serve as the engine driving the new mega programs. Third, development investments obtained by partners and fully aligned to a given mega program will need to provide essential support for the development partners. The Consortium Board will need to work with the Fund Council and Centre leadership to align these different sources of funds.

The greater size of the mega programs, compared to the smaller programs the Centers manage today, with consequently more complex funding, management and research coordination, is an obvious challenge in itself. Further development of the mega programs awaits finalization of the Strategic Results Framework, consultations with partners of the CGIAR and final selection of the programs that will make up the first portfolio of mega programs.

Guest Contribution: A Dialogue with Civil Society Organizations

By Tom Remington, Principal Agriculture Advisor, Catholic Relief Services

In late April, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) organized a half day CGIAR and Civil Society Organization (CSO) dialogue in Washington DC.  The event was co-hosted with InterAction, a coalition of US based international non-governmental organizations, and followed the CRS Agricultural Symposium on Holistic Innovations in Agriculture Programming on April 20, where Kathy Sierra, CGIAR Chair and Vice President of the World Bank Sustainable Development Network, joined CRS President Ken Hackett in giving keynote addresses, and CGIAR Director Ren Wang delivered a presentation on CGIAR-CSO Partnerships and the CGIAR Change Initiative (http://symposia.crsprogramquality.org/2009-agriculture-symposium/ ).

At the CGIAR-CSO dialogue, I briefed InterAction members on my participation in the Change Initiative as an NGO representative in the Partnership Working Group during the first phase of the process in 2008.  Ren engaged in a rich discussion with those present, sharing updates on the change process, responding to questions, and listening to feedback. After our presentations, current CGIAR-CSO partners highlighted the success stories of joint work through a series of short presentations. 

Our discussion made clear that US NGOs and CSOs more broadly are critical partners in agricultural development.  Advocacy groups such as InterAction, through its 174 members, can play an important role in advocating for the support of agricultural research within national governments (e.g. U.S. Congress) - a role that can be significantly enhanced through a strengthened mechanism for dialogue between these groups and the CGIAR. In 2006 alone, US NGOs invested almost US$9 billion dollars in developing countries; with private donors contributing two thirds of these resources and the US government providing the remaining third.  The single largest sector invested in was Long Term Sustainable Development (The Other Partner: NGOs and Private Sector Funding for International Development & Relief, InterAction Brief, February 2009;  http://www.interaction.org/files.cgi/6692_NGO_Finance_Brief_FINAL_3.2.09.pdf ).  

CSO partners also play an important role in putting research into use. It was acknowledged that the CGIAR has a tremendous amount of knowledge, but that knowledge is only useful when it can be leveraged in partnership with others.  Given the urgent need to increase investments in agricultural research and development, strategic collaboration with CSOs could help to both improve the allocation of resources to agricultural development and deliver more impact on the ground. Some key questions for the new CGIAR are how can it develop strategic partnerships, harness the significant resources of CSOs and the private sector, and achieve significant and sustainable impact on poverty at scale?

Successful complex partnerships need to recognize and embrace asymmetries in knowledge, funding and power.  If the new CGIAR can do this, it will go beyond research provision to knowledge creation through mutual learning. If the Change Initiative succeeds in doing this, the CGIAR will remain a leader in both agriculture research and development, and a partner I and others from the CSO community will look forward to working with for years to come.

Key Milestones and Events