ISPC14

1. Transition Update
The System Management Office
September 2016

2. www.cgiar.org
1. Starting from the 2009 Base
– Who did what ?
1
CGIAR Internal Audit Unit – Shared
Service Initiative of Centers and
Consortium

3. www.cgiar.org
1. Elements of Bogor April 2015 decision
of Fund Council?
• Call for ‘Simplified’ governance structure – with single
‘System Council’ and single ‘System office’ (from 1 July 2016)
• Executive Director appointed by new ‘System Council’
with a Terms of Reference serving the system as a whole
• A replenishment style fund-raising approach to be the basis for
predictable/sustainable funding
• Transition Plan prepared by end July 2015, and approved by the
Fund Council by end September 2015
Overall – a decision taken by the Fund Council based on 4 “options”
presented – but no one single “option” selected
2

4. www.cgiar.org
1. Elements of Bogor April 2015 decision:
Legal effect on the Consortium?
Decision on the CGIAR System Organization:
“After reviewing the four options proposed in the paper, the Fund Council
agrees to establish a CGIAR System Organization which will be comprised
of a CGIAR System Council and a CGIAR System Office, building on the
existing legal personality of the Consortium”
Intended streamlined approach with one board & one office:
• No change in the legal personality of the operating organization
• Name of legal entity is changed to “CGIAR System
Organization” from “CGIAR Consortium” to “CGIAR System
Organization”.
• Contractually – intent (and through various transitional
decisions) CGIAR System Organization automatically replaces
the Consortium
3

5. www.cgiar.org
There was a
relatively clear
outcome from
the Bogor
deliberations,
right?
4

6. www.cgiar.org
2. Changes en route
• For the role of Centers: Right from when the Bogor April 2015
decision was taken, did ‘active observer’ status meet reform
expectations of being key stakeholders in decisions affecting the
“system”?
• As disclosed in April 2016, for a small sub-set of key donors:
i. Legal prohibition on sitting on same governing board where
Centers have a voting seat & lingering discomfort of ‘active
observer’ status for Centers
ii. Direct fiduciary responsibility (no ‘intermediary’ Board) may be
problematic from a legal/donor perspective
• As an ongoing question, where was the element of independence
in Board-level decision making that the Consortium and Center
Boards all feature to strengthen the system overall?
5

7. www.cgiar.org
2. Changes and developments en route
Two governing boards:
• System Council – strategic body, mission-driven broad guidance
• System Management Board – “main” decision making body with
responsibility for overseeing implementation of the “CGIAR Portfolio”
One office: with a key facilitation; coordination; and development role
• Undertaking the work of both the former Consortium Office and the
Fund Office
Inclusion of an ‘Internal Audit Function’
• Agreed to be decided after the transition took place
• Defined to be “the arrangements agreed between the System Council
and System Management Board to provide independent and objective
assurance and advisory services to the System Council and the System
Management Board”.
6

8. www.cgiar.org
3. Main Legal Documents from July 2016
Broad principles – Agreed in February 2016 (annex to ‘Framework’)
• 12 concepts to guide the development of policies, procedures, guidelines
and operations of the CGIAR System, including:
• Collective responsibility and mutual respect
• Subsidiarity should guide policies; ‘overreach’ must be avoided
Main System-level documents
• ‘CGIAR System Framework’ – guide the role of the funders; System
Council defines the various entities and their respective roles
• ‘CGIAR System Organization Charter’ – guides the work of the System
Management Board; role of Executive Director; and defines the role of
the CGIAR System Management Office – key emphasis on facilitation
Agreements with the French Government – potentially “name changes”
• International Organization Treaty (signed with Hungary & Denmark)
• Headquarters Agreement & Social Security Agreement
7

9. www.cgiar.org
4. June 2016 outcomes: Common themes
Key features that remain
 A central “Trust Fund” as a pooled funding mechanism
- A Key change: it is a new trust fund, that starts in 2017
 A governing body of the funders – the ‘System Council’
- A key change: purely bilateral funders are now included
 A decision making body with members decided by Centers –
the ‘System Management Board’
- A key change: Center DGs/Board members are voting
members and comprise 7 of the 9 voting members
 An independent International Organization to support the
work – the ‘CGIAR System Organization
- A key change: More facilitation focused role, but still
with clear monitoring and reporting aspects
8

10. www.cgiar.org
4. June 2016 outcomes: Important new parts
Two new entities reinforce the partnership between the
Centers and Funders:
1. From the Framework, the Partnership Forum
Replacing the ‘Funders Forum’ and Co-Chaired by the
Centers and the Funders as a key evolution.
2. From the Charter, the ‘General Assembly of the Centers’
A forum for the CGIAR Research Centers to discuss issues
related to the CGIAR System and the CGIAR System
Organization, which meets at least once per year.
9

11. 10

12. 11

13. 12

14. www.cgiar.org
5. CGIAR System roles, responsibilities and
accountabilities – an overview
Considerable description in the Framework & Charter on the respective
roles and responsibilities
• 34 ‘functions’ of the System Council
• 49 ‘functions’ of the System Management Board
• 38 ‘functions’ of the System Management Office
Practically, for the Science/Program Team in the SMO, this means
• Contributing to an integrated system for performance management
Annual WP&B
Annual Portfolio review
criteria for prioritization
and, allocation of unrestricted budget
• Input into system science considerations of the SMB – SRF, guidance
on program proposal development
• Monitor implementation of decisions arising from system-wide
evaluations
13

15. www.cgiar.org
6. July 2016 Paris meetings:
Consolidating the transition
 System Council, 12 July 2016
i. Appointed Juergen Voegele as Chair
ii. Affirmed the operating budgets of ISPC, IEA and the System
Organization (board and office)
iii. Ratified all the policies in the system to avoid disruption
iv. Agreed to take on relevant ongoing responsibilities of the Former
Fund Council for the existing CGIAR Fund
v. Agreed to a “carry-over” of any uncommitted and unspent 2016
funds – if any – into 2017
 System Management Board, 11 & 13 July 2016
i. Appointed Martin Kropff as Interim Chair
ii. Ratified all system-wide policies also
iii. Agreed for the transfer for the former functions of the Fund Office
to the System Management Office from October 2016
14

16. www.cgiar.org
7. Ongoing embedding of activities
1. The System Management Board has approved and is consulting
on the formation of 1 Standing Committee + at present,
minimum of 4 working groups
Audit & Risk Committee
Working Groups
i. Resource Mobilization
ii. Rules of Governance, including supporting the development
of the General Assembly and its Rules of Procedure
iii. Cost-sharing for Host Centers
iv. Funding System Actions & Entities – Chaired by Interim ED
2. The new Executive Director of the CGIAR System Organization
will take office on 3 October 2016
15

17. www.cgiar.org
8. Testing the System
Joint May 2016 Rome Meeting
• Funders and Centers talked about whether the transition system was “fit for
purpose”
Grain Legumes/Dryland Cereals (previously ‘DCL’) proposal provides important real
example
• System Council has indicated that it has no reservation in rejecting funding for a
proposal that does not meet CGIAR’s standards
• Disallowed extra time for the DCL proposal, and was bound by 31 July deadline
• 1 August 2016 – saw 1st key test for System Management Board
Key SMO functions continue (these are science –related only)
 Portfolio report for 2015 published
 Annual Report 2015 (and on-line version) in finalization
 Contributions to system level gender, CapDev, MELCoP, Open Access-Open Data,
IP and site integration all continuing in 2016
16

18. www.cgiar.org
9. Three forthcoming strategic pieces of work
Under the Charter, the System Management Board is to:
1. Propose - Comprehensive risk management framework for the ‘CGIAR
System’
2. Approve – process for and means of fulfilling Internal Audit Function in
consultation with System Council
3. Propose - Integrated framework for a Performance Management
System for CGIAR Research
Anticipate:
• The ‘how’ to go about these will be discussed by the System
Management Board in its 26 September 2016 2nd meeting
• Broad consultation across the System, including with Centers Boards,
over the next 4 – 6 months, to address these complex topics
• Call with Centers Board Chairs and DGs on 27 September to provide
progress update on how this work will move forward
17

19. www.cgiar.org
10. Some people
Nick Austin - Interim Exec. Director
Executive Director Designate –
Elwyn Grainger-Jones – starts Oct 3.
Senior staff:
Albin Hubscher – Finance
Karmen Bennett – Governance
Alain Vidal – Strategy and Liaison
Peter Gardiner – Science
Elise Perset – Legal
Pierre Pradal – Internal Audit
Michael Marus – ITC
Michael Veltman – HR
Departures:
Frank Rijsberman – CEO
Wayne Powell – Chief Science Officer
Enrica Porcari – Head, Shared services
Hannah Edwards - Communications
New relationships with former FO
staff:
Lori Dagdag – to Finance and Trustee
relations
Min Lee – to Governance
Links for Communications tbd.
18

20. www.cgiar.org