Guiding Principles

The Transition Management Team keeps as its guiding principles the benefits we set out to achieve at the beginning of this change initiative:

• A more focused CGIAR with clearer vision and strategic directions
• A results-based culture rooted in a programmatic approach to addressing development challenges
• Simplified governance and clarified accountability, with clear and distinct roles for “doers” and “funders”
• A financially strengthened and more cost-effective CGIAR
• An open CGIAR, which values dynamic partnerships
• An exciting research environment, which attracts and develops the best scientists

On a more personal note, the candid statements below show what motivates each of us on a daily basis as leaders implementing this change initiative.

“This is a crucial opportunity to make a difference. If we don’t take action now, we will lose it. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and others have come up with many studies, models and scenarios of what the world food situation will look like in the future. Evidence shows that the 'perfect storm' is brewing. If we do not act and invest in global agricultural reform now, with significant increases to research and development budgets, the future negative consequences could be unstoppable.” Jonathan Wadsworth

"Agricultural research at all levels needs to be more effectively driven by and embedded in delivering development outcomes if we are to meet the enormous challenges ahead. I commit my time and effort to this process, on behalf of the stakeholders of the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) because this is such an important catalyst for change that will influence other actors and foster required investment in, and reorientation of, agricultural research for development systems around the world. We all can do a lot more.” Mark Holderness

Tackling Tough Questions Head-on with a System Mindset

We are reaching a critical inflection point of the reform effort—we have spent much of this year fleshing out greater levels of detail of what the new System will look like and how it will work, relying on the key criteria that were unanimously approved by the CGIAR membership in Maputo in 2008:  clear strategic focus; increased research output, outcome and impact; greater efficiency, effectiveness and relevance; simplicity and clarity of governance; enhanced decentralized decision making; and active subsidiarity to capitalize on complementarities between the Centers.
We are also at the point where we need to tackle and resolve the tough, persistent questions that are of major concern to the CGIAR’s own stakeholders:

• Will the Consortium have “real” power and how much?

• Will donors make a financial commitment to the new System and join the Fund?

• What will (and will not be) the role of the new Independent Science and Partnership Council? 

• What is the cost impact of this new System (i.e. are we introducing more complexity and increasing costs?)

• How will real accountability be created in the new System?

We are very much addressing these issues head on and with our eyes open.  There are no “silver bullets” that will magically resolve any of these issues, and we are not pursuing the “lowest common denominator.”  Rather, we are working to engage a variety of stakeholders to devise answers and solutions that are practical and that will still deliver on the goals of the reform. As Kathy Sierra mentioned in a recent TMT Journal, we need to remember our shared values that have successfully brought us this far:  empathy, trust, and a System mindset.  If we’re all able to bring a System mindset to these discussions, we’ll get where we need to go.

Much More than a Conference - the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development 2010 is Bringing People Together around the Globe

The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) process is beginning to gain momentum, with the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) leading an ambitious consultation process involving a wide range of agricultural research stakeholders around the world, from farmer bodies to advanced research institutions. The GCARD aims to inspire change and investment in agricultural research for development systems around the world, so that they can be more effective agents for development impact and more accountable in meeting the needs of the poor.

The first step of this process has been to map current documented development needs, policies and research priorities for each region. The consultation process now taking place through regional e-consultations and face-to-face meetings aims to hear directly from stakeholders what are their priorities, views and opinions related to agricultural research for development (R4D) and how this can play a more effective role in supporting processes of development.

Six regional e-consultations took place in September with more than 1,200 participants worldwide. Beyond specific themes, several cross-cutting systematic areas have emerged across all regions, all of which point to a common need for reorientation in the way research is conducted:

• Role of youth and women in agriculture

• Need for improved focus of agricultural research on the needs of the poor

• Need for demand-driven research

• Potential of public private partnerships

• Role of farmer and indigenous knowledge

•  The need to engage civil society in the R4D innovation process

Highlights from these e-consultations are available from the GCARD blog: http://gcardblog.wordpress.com/

The e-consultation results will now be further discussed and distilled in regional face-to-face meetings within which the CGIAR’s draft Strategy and Results Framework and Mega-Programs will also be shared and discussed for feedback. Key issues identified and major elements of these consultations will be documented in regional reports and a global synthesis report as input to the GCARD 2010 event that will take place in Montpellier, France in March 2010.

While the GCARD process is an integral part of the new CGIAR that provides a feedback loop for the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega-Programs, the GCARD encompasses more than the CGIAR; it  aims to develop a new global agricultural research system, driven by tangible development outcomes and bringing together all those involved in agriculture research for development (R4D).  For more information about GCARD visit: http://www.egfar.org/egfar/website/gcard/

The Pieces Begin to Come Together

Since the 16th Executive Council meeting in June, the Transition Management Team and all involved in the change initiative have been working hard to respond to feedback received from the Members. With less than a month to go before the Executive Council (ExCo-17) meets again in early November, the elements of the new CGIAR are taking clearer shape. However, several issues are still being ironed out in the lead up to this important meeting, which will serve as a final check point before the Business Meeting where Members will make their final decisions on the reform.  The following is a snapshot of where we currently stand.

Strategy and Results Framework and Mega-Programs

A Strategy Team, commissioned by the CGIAR Alliance, has been working to articulate both the Strategy and Results Framework (the outcomes and intermediate objectives the CGIAR will pursue) and a potential set of Mega-Programs (the programmatic and operational expression of the Strategy and Results Framework) so that we have a “straw model” for broad stakeholder consultation over the next several months in the lead up to the March 2010 GCARD.

The Strategy Team recently completed its fourth progress report. This report, which has been made available for discussion, offers a preliminary but quite detailed view of what the CGIAR as a whole could achieve if its work were significantly scaled up, along with the required accompanying investments in its partners through to farm level. The ongoing approach by which the team arrived at its proposed strategy entails three lines of inquiry: (1) broad consultation with research communities inside and outside the CGIAR, (2) comprehensive modeling and mapping, and (3) communication with recognized leaders and visionaries in professions related to agricultural development. This three-pronged approach reflects the team’s choice to “trust in science, modeling and wisdom,” respectively. The consultation was carried out through a large-scale survey of scientists, which sought their views on research opportunities. About 400 scientists responded, identifying nearly 500 distinct opportunities. The outline will also be put to the GCARD regional face-to-face consultations for wider feedback from a broader range of stakeholders.

To get an idea of how much additional investment in agricultural research is needed the team used two models. With one model, comparing a business-as-usual baseline scenario with a brighter prospect of accelerated investment, the team explored the real differences such investment might make for food security and child nutrition.  Their results suggest, for example, that a scenario of steadily declining cereal prices over the longer term would reduce the number of malnourished children by 39 million in 2050. The team complemented such modeling studies with comprehensive and innovative mapping to help determine where new investments might best be focused.

Analyses are still under way. These, along with early feedback from stakeholders, will inform the Strategy Team’s final report, which should be available by mid October. The Strategy Team welcomes feedback on its progress report and the Alliance invites comments via a web page for this purpose: http://alliance.cgxchange.org/strategy-and-results-framework-and-mega-programs.

Consortium

Good progress is being made in the development of the Consortium Constitution. The constitution has been through an iterative process of discussion and refinement by a Reference Group comprising representatives from the Alliance and CGIAR Members. The work of the Reference Group is largely completed and the penultimate draft of the Consortium Constitution will be discussed at the Alliance meeting in late October and at ExCo-17.  

One of the remaining key issues is whether the Consortium has meaningful power.  The Reference Group is comfortable with the balance it has struck in the draft Constitution, but the constitution will still need approval from Center Boards and ExCo Members.

The Alliance, working with the Boston Consulting Group, has reached the final stages in the other activities for designing the Consortium. The key functions of the Consortium Office have been mapped based on the Consortium Constitution and best practices in similar types of organizations. Parts of the roles of the current Alliance Office, CGIAR Secretariat, and Science Council Secretariat as well as responsibilities not assumed by any office today form the basis of the Boston Consulting Group’s recommendations on the functions of the Consortium Office.  These recommendations will be considered by the Consortium Board once it is established. The nine Consortium Board members are expected to be announced by December 2009. The search for the Consortium CEO will begin once the Board is in place.

Preliminary findings of the study on the net cost impact of the future System show a potential for lower costs when considering opportunities for shared services. At a minimum, findings indicate that the new structure will have a neutral cost impact. These have been reviewed by the Alliance and with this input, a final report is being prepared for the Alliance to review and discuss at their meeting in October.
More information on the progress of the Consortium design is available at http://alliance.cgxchange.org/welcome.  On that note,  a review and analysis of opportunities for common administrative, financial and research support services is also well underway. This analysis will inform the Consortium Board and the Centers on the type of shared services and research support functions that could best be provided at a system level by the Consortium. The consulting firm Accenture Development Partners is carrying out the review. 

Fund

The Fund Framework Document is now being revised in response to issues raised by ExCo and subsequently by the Advisory Group for the Fund. To help come to alignment on unresolved issues, an electronic consultation brought the advisory group together virtually to share their views. These consultations helped to build alignment on preferred options on the following topics:  Fund Council composition and establishment; guiding principles; system costs; governance; and funding architecture. Highlights from the consultation include:

• Clear consensus in favor of all donors – Fund and bilateral – contributing to financing system costs (i.e, costs incurred for the benefit of all donors – such as Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC), evaluations, Funders’ Forum and coordination activities of the Consortium).  “Free riding” in the new CGIAR was strongly and broadly rejected.  

• Fund Council membership and composition is a remaining issue to be resolved, especially as it relates to the threshold for standing membership on the Council—some want a more moderate threshold of US$15-20 million, while others are pushing for a higher threshold of $30 million.  This issue will require more consultation.

• There was broad agreement that the Funders’ Forum is not conceived as a “body” but rather as an “event”, and the Forum should “endorse” rather than “approve” the Strategy and Results Framework.

• There should not be a transitional Fund Council before the Fund Council is convened in early 2010.

Additionally, on the basis of feedback from Members, investments into the Fund in 2010 will be at least US$250 million, and the following Members have indicated their preliminary commitment to join the Fund.

Accountability

The mutual accountabilities and responsibilities of the Consortium, the Centers and the Fund have been further developed and are now being weaved into the key founding documents for the new CGIAR and into a single overarching document preliminarily called the CGIAR Declaration.  An advisory group of donors and Alliance representatives has been guiding the development of these accountabilities, responsibilities, and documents. A system-wide Monitoring and Evaluation Framework is also being developed, which articulates the responsibilities, timings and reporting of various evaluations, and this also includes the independent evaluation arrangement in the new CGIAR.

The new Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework being developed emphasizes that effective research for development is a responsibility shared among the Consortium, Funders and all Stakeholders. Importantly, the new Framework is expected to harmonize and simplify current M&E procedures as all donors who contribute to the Fund will no longer conduct additional, duplicative evaluations of Mega-Programs or Centers.  Additionally, it sets out an evaluation arrangement that is acknowledged to be independent and impartial to the policy-making process and the delivery and management of a program, and built around two new concepts:

• “Mutual accountability for outputs”:  the Consortium and Centers will be held fully accountable for high-quality science and technology products and services within an agreed timeframe, while the Fund will be held accountable for an aligned provision of funds to support the development of research outputs as agreed in the performance agreements.

• “Shared responsibility for outcomes”:  both the Consortium and Fund, together with their partners, have a shared responsibility for managing actions towards mutually-agreed outcomes, (e.g. demonstrating sustainable influence and uptake of outputs by clients and longer-term improvements of livelihoods in developing countries).

Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC)

The Business Meeting in Maputo in December 2008 mandated the Transition Management Team to ‘elaborate on the ISPC’s terms of reference’. Subsequently, the TMT commissioned an Independent Task Group (ITG) to solicit views of the key stakeholders and make recommendations on the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC). Based on the ITG’s recommendations, comments from the Science Council, Alliance members and CGIAR members, as well as the Maputo decisions, the TMT is finalizing its recommendations for the terms of reference of the ISPC and next steps. These will be discussed at the coming ExCo meeting.

Key Events on the Horizon

This phase of the change initiative of translating the agreed reforms into concrete actions and plans to be implemented is coming into the home stretch with three key decision meetings to go: the Alliance meeting October 29-31 in Rome, the 17th meeting of the Executive Council (ExCo-  17) on November 3-4 also in Rome, and the final CGIAR Business Meeting on December 7 in Washington DC.

The Alliance meeting will discuss the draft Consortium Constitution, the draft Strategy and Results Framework and Mega-Programs, other reports being prepared to support the Consortium design, and progress on the search and selection of Consortium Board members. ExCo-17 will focus on the reform implementation and address outstanding issues in preparation for the final CGIAR Business Meeting, which will be held in Washington on December 7, 2009. The Business Meeting will adopt the final founding documents for the new CGIAR, notably the Consortium Constitution, the Fund Framework, the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and the CGIAR Declaration, the later being an overarching document that links all of the pieces of the new CGIAR together as one system.

The new approach and proposed Strategy and Results Framework will be launched at the GCARD Conference in March 2010, as the first step in detailed discussions towards formulating the new programmes.

Calendar

Be Part of the Change

Learn more about the Change Initiative

• Visit the CGIAR Change Management Website where you can find more materials about the change including a written summary and video of the new CGIAR model, earlier editions of Embracing Change, and the change calendar: http://www.cgiar.org/changemanagement/index.html

• TMT Journal Updates, written by different members of the Transition Management Team, are issued every 10 days or so. To receive these updates, send an email with the subject line “Subscribe to TMT Journal Update” to TMT@cgiar.org. Archived TMT Journal Updates are available on the Change Blog at: http://cgiarchangemanagement.wordpress.com/

• An Alliance website on Communication for Change provides progress updates and draft documents about two elements of the transition that the Alliance leads—development of the Consortium of Centers and the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs: http://alliance.cgxchange.org/

 Contribute to the Change Blog or Embracing Change

The CGIAR Change Blog is a forum for views and news on the change process. Post these online at: http://cgiarchangemanagement.wordpress.com/

Embracing Change is a platform for exchanging information on the transformation of the CGIAR. Your contributions are welcome and encouraged. Email your submissions to change@cgiar.org with Embracing Change in the subject line.