CGIAR TransformationWhere are we going?Presentation Transcript
CGIAR Transformation Where are we going? Ruben G. Echeverría 19 th October 2009 Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor Strategy Team: Joachim von Braun (chair), Derek Byerlee, Colin Chartres, Tom Lumpkin, Norah Olembo, Jeff Waage September 24, 2009
Tomorrow FUND FUND COUNCIL Fund Mgmt Unit FUNDER SUMMIT CONSORTIUM Management Layer Oversight BOARD Common Services Centers Consortium CEO Center Performance Agreements Bilateral Project Financing Program Performance Contracts Accountability: Science and Partnership Council 6 year Strategy and Results Framework
CURRENT CGIAR FUTURE CGIAR Greater impact on food security and poverty reduction
Mission creep and trying to do everything
Duplicative mandate of the Centers without clear System-wide vision and strategy for impact
Complex and cumbersome governance and lack of accountability
Static partnerships that are not enabling scalable impact and research adoption
Lack of coordination among investors
Declining core resources
Clear vision with focused priorities that respond to global development challenges
Centers that collaborate, work toward the System agenda and priorities, and deliver impact
Streamlined and effective System-level governance with clear accountability
Strong and innovative partnerships with NARS, the private sector and civil society that enable impact
Strengthened, coordinated funding mechanisms that are linked to the System agenda and priorities
Stabilization and growth of resource support
Issues Undermining the CGIAR’s Effectiveness
Mission Creep: Over the course of the last 37 years, the CGIAR’s mandate has increased significantly, growing from 4 Centers with a narrow focus on productivity to 15 Centers with an expanded agenda. Resources have not kept pace with this broadening portfolio.
Increased complexity and overlaps in mandates: Since its inception in 1971, the CGIAR system has evolved into an increasingly complex entity, characterized by complicated governance structures. There is no mutually agreed “compact” outlining the obligations of donors and centers.
Stagnating Resources and Lack of Donor Coordination: Contributions were $20 million in 1972 and $89 million in 2007. Furthermore, 36% of funding in 2007 was unrestricted as compared with 63% in 1995 and 100% in 1972. Lack of coordination among investors results in sub-optimal resource use.
Changing Landscape of Agricultural Research: The entry of strong new actors into the field of agricultural research is further challenging the role of the CGIAR.
Recasting the Founding Principles Existing Principles The Change Donor Sovereignty Donor Harmonization Center Autonomy Significantly reduced with greater System coherence Decision Making by Consensus Replaced by new decision rules and Performance Contracts Independent Scientific and Technical Advice Integrated Independent Science, Partnership and Development Outcome Advice
Actors and Governance of Food and Agriculture
The CGIAR: catalyser, facilitator, and leader of int’l public goods research in agriculture
BUT must build new and diverse partnerships to deliver outcomes effectively and efficiently
CGIAR Centers National agric. research systems Private sector investors in agric. research
Portfolio of Mega Programs
Constitutes coherent agenda for the entire CGIAR to meet the its objectives
Shows quantifiable outcomes and ultimate impacts the CGIAR can coproduce and deliver
Ensures that each Mega Program has explicit linkages to other mega programs
Scenario A assumes that productivity increases (total factor productivity is assumed to increase annually in all regions by 0.5 percentage points).
Scenario B assumes that countries and donors become more poverty oriented (that is, total R&D invested in 2008 is allocated among regions in such a way that poverty is minimized).
Scenario C combines a scenario of increased productivity with increased efficiency of R&D .
Scenarios for R&D investment and impact on poverty and agricultural productivity growth, 2008-20
Mega Program Portfolio - Draft
Crop Germplasm Conservation, Enhancement, and Use —Genetic improvement of the world’s leading food crops’ productivity and resiliency (i.e. rice, wheat, maize) , building on the success of the CGIAR, including its crucial role in conservation of genetic resources.
Diets, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health —Research to improve nutritional value of food and diets, enhance targeted nutrition and food safety programs, and change agricultural commodities and systems in the medium term to enhance health outcomes.
Institutional Innovations, ICTs, and Markets —Knowledge to inform institutional changes needed for a well-functioning local, national, and global food system that connects small farmers to agricultural value chains through information and communications technologies and facilitates policy and institutional reforms.
Climate Change and Agriculture —Diagnosis of the directions and potential impacts of climate change for agriculture and identification of adaptation and mitigation options for agricultural, food, and environmental systems.
Agricultural Systems for the Poor and Vulnerable —Research integrating promising crop, animal, fish, and forest combinations with policy and natural resource issues in the domains where high concentrations of the world’s poor live and which offer agricultural potential.
Water, Soils, and Ecosystems —Harmonization of agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability goals through policies, methods, and technologies to improve water and soil management.
Forests and Biomass —Technical, institutional, and policy changes to help conserve forests for humanity and harness forestry and biomass production potentials for sustainable development and the poor.
Each Individual Mega Program:
Addresses one or more strategic objectives
Is of sufficient scale to deliver on results and/or measurable impacts
Reflects the CGIAR’s comparative advantage in leading/catalyzing research
Effectively mobilizes resources, capacity, and synergies among partners
Has a clear impact pathway
Has an investment time horizon of 6 to 20 years
Has a simple and cost-effective management mechanism
Gender : Facilitate strong attention to gender issues and research cooperation on these issues across MPs. Expected results:
increased involvement and income of women in agriculture
reduced disparities in their access to productive resources and control of income
Capacity-building : Strengthen capacity of CGIAR and partners. Expected result:
dynamic knowledge-creating and -sharing system, strong independent NARS, and other research partners sharing knowledge resources and applications
Examples of Mega Program synergies With strong synergies, the value added of the MP portfolio surpasses the sum of the value of individual MPs operations MP1: Crop Germplasm Conservation, Enhancement, and Use MP2: Diets, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health MP4: Climate Change and Agriculture MP3: Institutional Innovations, ICTs, and Markets
Major Transition Issues
Transition of funding and research directions
Systemwide and Ecoregional Programs and Challenge Programs in the future MP framework
Building existing and continuing work into the new MPs
The CGIAR in LAC
Several centers had a strong regional approach when initially establish
The regional approach lost relevance with the increased number of centers around the world
The regional approach reappears on the Center’s agenda in the late 90s
The CGIAR Change Process has repositioned the regional approach
CGIAR in LAC: A new opportunity to renew alliances
CGIAR as a key partner for LAC; building on regional strength
CGIAR Change Process: rethinking strategy and structure
CGIAR: more programmatic, open to alliances, and better funded
Building a research agenda that includes themes of common interest
Shared responsibility and accountability for design, execution, follow-up, and evaluation of joint projects