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.

2012 Reflections and 2013 Outlook: Accountability for Performance through Partnerships


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2012 Reflections and 2013 Outlook: Accountability for Performance through Partnerships

  1. 1. 2012 Reflections and 2013 Outlook: Accountability for Performance through PartnershipsFrank Rijsberman, CEO CGIAR Consortium, January 14, 2013
  2. 2. Overview• Reflections on 2012: – Funding – SRF Action Plan• Outlook 2013: – Priority Setting & Performance – Governance Review and Accountability
  3. 3. Reflections 2012• 2012: the year the New CGIAR got legs• Complete CRP Portfolio now approved• Now have SRF and SRF Action Plan approved• Funding sharply up: – allocations $900M; – expenditures $850M (carry forward $60M) – $150 Window 2 (partially decoupled from W1)• Governance a new top priority / Dec retreat
  4. 4. Food Insecurity and Undernutrition Remain Persistent Prevalence of Micronutrient 2011 Global Hunger Index Deficiencies GHI components: Deficiencies in: • Proportion of undernourished • Iron • Prevalence of underweight in children • Vitamin A • Under-five mortality rate • Zinc 20 countries have alarming or extremely alarming levels of hungerSource: von Grebmer et al. 2011 Source: HarvestPlus 2011 Shenggen Fan | December 2011
  5. 5. Food Price SpikesInflation-adjusted prices of maize, wheat, rice,soybeans, and oil, 1990–2011 Source: IFPRI
  6. 6. For food prices to remain constant, annual yield gains would have to increase • From 1.6% to 2.4% for maize • From 0.9% to 1.5% for rice • From 1.1% to 2.3% for wheat • On essentially the same land area, with less water, nutrients, fossil fuel, Climate labor and as climates change change Water, nutrient & energy scarcity Projected demand by 2050 (FAO) Diseases World-wide average yield Linear extrapolations• First concerns: late 1990s of current trends (tons ha-1)• The more we delay investments, Potential effect the steeper the challenge of climate- change-induced heat stress on today’s cultivars (intermediate Agronomy Breeding CO2 emission scenario) Year
  7. 7. CGIAR in 2008 – Pre-reform• 60 donors loosely coordinating through CGIAR• 15 independent research centers• 3000 bilateral projects• Unrestricted support down from 50-60% to 20-30%• Overhead costs 24% on average• Very little strategic research• Funding stagnant at about $400M/yr
  8. 8. New CGIAR in 2012• Donors united in CGIAR Fund• Centers united in CGIAR Consortium• 16 CGIAR Research Programs• Core support through Fund ~ 35%• Overhead costs down to 16%• Some space for strategic research• Funding up to over $850M in 2012
  9. 9. Remaining reform priorities1. Making the CRPs a focused set of 15(+1) programs that are an attractive investment portfolio with clear outcomes, demonstrated value for money, and effective but efficient monitoring and impact assessment2. Fulfilling the partnership promise: opening up the CGIAR so that partnership expectations match self assessment
  10. 10. Strategy and Results Framework A strategic partnership dedicated to advancing science to address the central development challenges of our time: 4 SLOs: • Reducing rural poverty • Improving food security . • Improving nutrition and health • Sustainably managing natural resources
  11. 11. Issues in the 2011 CGIAR SRF1. Include a dynamic foresight dimension2. Include a process for setting priorities3. Identify metrics to measure success & connect performance of CRPs to SLOs
  12. 12. ISPC white paper on priority setting 7 recommendations:1. Develop Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) at system level, linked to SLOs2. CRP level: specify IDOs & impact pathways3. Prioritize within CRP & develop value for money4. System level decisions on priority domains: geographies, agro-ecosystems, commodity systems5. Guidance for resource allocation at portfolio level6. Performance contracts that reflect priorities7. Cyclical updating of SRF – including analysis of external environment thru scenarios drawing from foresight analysis
  13. 13. SRF Action Plan:1. Prioritization at two levels: – System level “top down” development of IDOs – CRP level “bottom up” development of IDOs & value propositions2. Performance management system, supporting resource allocation to optimize impact and value for money3. Partnerships for demand and for delivery4. Cyclical Updating: 2013 Management Update for SRF
  14. 14. Upswing in Investment 1,100 CGIAR Total Funding Trends Nominal and in 1972 dollars 1,000 1,000 900 855 800 766 700 725 600US$ million 500 400 300 200 1972 dollars, 121 100 20 0 Actual, Nominal 1972 dollars Target _____ projected, nominal
  15. 15. Institutional Cost Rate (a.k.a. overhead)CGIAR average 2004: 24% 2008: 19% 2005: 21% 2009: 17% 2006: 20% 2010: 19% 2007: 20% 2011: 16%Goal: 2015: 13% (+2 % system cost)Declines due to: - Implies improving efficiency - Revised calculations (more items direct charged) - Larger budgets overall
  16. 16. Progress on Mainstreaming Gender Research• A CGIAR-wide Gender Research Strategy approved• Gender and Agriculture Network established• Almost all CRPs have initiated Gender Strategies• Proposal developed for Gender Performance Fund to incentivize mainstreamed implementation of Gender Strategies
  17. 17. The Dublin Process Enhancing CAADP and CGIAR Alignment and Partnership• Strong demand for CGIAR engagement from African partners• Efforts underway: • MoU African Union - CGIAR • African Science Agenda • Regional Productivity Workshops • Mapping & Alignment Tool• Shared leadership among CAADP, CGIAR and development partners• Political momentum through the G8 and G20 in support of this process, will include Technology Innovation Platform• Involves joint planning and priority setting
  18. 18. GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platform: major public launch Dec ‘12Marker-assisted breeding can cut 3-5 years from breeding cycle, with estimated benefits in order of hundreds of millions of US$ for cassava alone
  19. 19. ACIAR Impact Assessment of CGIAR • ACIAR 2011 impact assessment of IRRI’s rice breeding in Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippin es • Benefits: $1.46 billion per year from 1985 - 2009
  20. 20. CRP Genebanks approvedMarch 2012: >$100M over 5 years Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationPartnership with Global Crop Diversity Trust
  21. 21. Outlook 2013• External Governance Review: – Accountability & Risk management• Priority Setting Processes: – Performance through Partnerships
  22. 22. CGIAR Consortium Board’s Dual Accountability Fund Council / Funders ForumConsortium Consortium Activities Centers (Consortium Members)
  23. 23. Consortium Office Products and Services1. Policies: the Common Operational Framework and other Consortium policies and standards.2. Core business: Management of the CRP portfolio and annual CRP cycle.3. Shared systems or services.4. Communities of Practice (COPs), Partnership enabling and external relations.5. Internal Consortium back-office support: Consortium internal business; support for CB & members.
  24. 24. Policies Fund Council Consortium Common Consortium Operational Policies Framework Centers (Consortium Members)
  25. 25. Core business Fund Council and Funders ForumCB/CO CRP Portfolio & Annual Cycle Centers (Consortium Members)
  26. 26. Shared Systems / Services Fund Council / Funders ForumCB/CO Shared systems OCS or services Centers (Consortium Members)
  27. 27. CoPs / Partnerships / Ext. Rel. Fund Council / Funders Forum CB/CO Comms CoPs / CRP Partnerships / partnerships Ext Relations Centers (Consortium Members)
  28. 28. Internal / Back Office Fund Council / Funders Forum / Donors CB/CO CB & Resource Member mobilization Support Centers (Consortium Members)
  29. 29. Figure 1: Process for Determining System Level Metrics of Performance and PrioritizationThe System Level Prioritization Process Working group has been tasked to: •Think through the iterative process of defining metrics at the system level, including the inputs (data, modelling, advice) required for such a process, the interaction with the CRP level prioritization process, as well as the engagement and consultation of key stakeholders. •Establish a timeline and key milestones in the process. •Develop Terms of Reference for key inputs to the process to be commissioned by the Consortium.The deliverables from the working group are expected to be: •A System Prioritization Process design memo; and •Terms of Reference for key inputs to the process to be commissioned by the Consortium. Time-phased Milestones and Deliverables Phase I Phase II Phase IIIOutline Process for System-Level Background Studies for System- Negotiate Targets at System andMetrics and Prioritization Level Work, and Coordination with CRP Levels and approve 2014 CRP-Level Effort Management Update1. Appointing Working Group to Design SLO-IDOs Process 1. CRP –IDOs refined by CRP- 1. Participatory stakeholder process to2. Draft ISPC TORs for a white paper Working Group. validate recommended system level on the Theory of Change and 2. ISPC paper on Theory of IDOs. Target levels negotiated at Impact Pathway at CGIAR System Change, use and limits of metrics the System Level (with donors and level. based on current state of stakeholders) and at the CRP Level3. Draft TORs for key additional knowledge. (with science leaders). studies 3. Key commissioned analyses & 2. Revised IDOs, work-plans and studies (modeling of promising budgets completed, approved by technologies, mapping of CG CB and submitted to Funders work, NRM) incorporated. Forum. 4. One-day meeting, ISPC presents 3. 2014 SRF Management Update and discuss white paper and review Approved candidate CRP IDOs with the CRP leaders. Candidate system-level IDOs selected.
  30. 30. Process Flow and Timeline Phase I Phase II Phase III (I.1) Aspiration: Achieve Global (III.3) (II.1) Participatory process aligns priorities ofFunders Forum Development Outcomes (SLOs) Stakeholders diverse CGIAR stakeholders into a set of System (II.12) (III.8) (III.7) Approve 2014 SRF (III.3) Negotiate Target values SL-IDOs Management Update level priorities & (I.2) Commissioned White Paper on Prioritization (II.2) White Paper on System Level (III.1) (II.1) TOC, Pathways to Impact and IDOs (I.3) First draft (III.1) One-day meeting, ISPC to present and discuss white paper and review CRP And (II.11) CRP-IDOsISPC IEA Review CRP IDOs + (II.2) (III.9) IDOs with the CRP leaders; System-level IDOs proposed Management Update (III.6) Submit 2014 (II.6) CRP-2 Commission ISPC White Paper (II.4) ex ante (III.4) Synthesis of Key Studies & Key Studies/Analyses Consortium (I.4) Appoint Working Groups to: Select CRPs to Pilot Performance Management Negotiate CRP IDOs (geographically explicit and time- CB - CO Design SL Process (II.9) (II.7) CRP-2 & Mapping Refine CRP - IDOs (III.2) bound), work-plan budgets (II.8) Natural Resource CRP IDOs Refined (Version 3) (I.7) Mangment (III.5) Report on Final CRP SLO-WG Outline Process, Draft (I.5) Memo and TORs (II.5) for ISPC & Key Inputs (II.13) IDOs CRPs (I.6) (II.3) (II.10) CRP Working Group Refining CRP IDOs 09-12 11-30-12 03-24-13 04-13 06/07-13 08-13 09-13
  31. 31. Concluding• The CGIAR reform is already a major institutional achievement -“just in time” for renewed focus on food security as top priority• Centers are growing again – 30-40% in 2012• CRPs are beginning to make a difference• 2013 should be the year we make a major step forward on the development of a performance management system
  32. 32. THANK YOU