Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
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 prop...
Context of reviews 2
Task Force
• Need to simplify current complexity of the System as a
whole
• Need for more engagement ...
Context of reviews 3
• Evaluation reports plus overview from IEA on then current
evaluations
• Some scepticism on whether ...
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
...
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
...
What do the ISPC ratings mean?
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015
• Cs at CRP level – did not mean that ISPC think t...
Headlines on ratings
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015
• ISPC put a strong emphasis on ‘rigour and credibility of s...
Headline comments 1
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Washington November 2015
General
• Significant evidence of lessons learned – tho...
Headline comments continued
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Washington November 2015
Efficiency
• Some duplication in terms of scali...
Slides from Paris
Meeting on portfolio hosted by ISPC one day after
commentaries were sent out
~ 46 attendees from Centers...
Systems research approach
• Evidence of research from 3 systems programs being
integrated
• A start to moving towards agri...
Agri-Food Systems
Action point: A common understanding of agri-food systems is
needed in order to operationalize them, but...
Integrated research portfolio
• Start made with Global Integrating Programs but need for
justified prioritization of links...
Integrated research portfolio
Action points: The full proposals should highlight the lessons
learned regarding integration...
Comparative/competitive/
collaborative advantage
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
• The CAs of the private secto...
Comparative/competitive/
collaborative advantage
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
Action points: Clear definitio...
Scaling up and impact
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris Sept 2015
• Lots of partners but description of partnership strategies
d...
Scaling up and impact
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris Sept 2015
Action points: We are reaching a consensus on what the CG shou...
Respondents
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC, Rome, November 2015
• 12 donors who contributed to W1/W2 (and W3/bilateral), 11 do...
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...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ISPC observations on the CRP pre-proposals & what needs to be done

Rome November 2015

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ISPC observations on the CRP pre-proposals & what needs to be done

  1. 1. ISPC observations on the CRP pre-proposals & what needs to be done Rome November 2015
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Context of reviews 2 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 http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015
  4. 4. Context of reviews 3 • 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 http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. What do the ISPC ratings mean? http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015 • 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’
  8. 8. Headlines on ratings http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015 • 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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) http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
  13. 13. 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. http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
  14. 14. 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? http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
  15. 15. 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. http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
  16. 16. Comparative/competitive/ collaborative advantage http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015 • 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?
  17. 17. Comparative/competitive/ collaborative advantage http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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.
  20. 20. 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%)
  21. 21. 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 Score(PointsweightedproportionallytoW1/W2budget) 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

×