Download to read offline
Qualitative prioritization - Tim Kelley
The ISPC conducted a qualitative prioritization exercise to provide expert scientific guidance for new CRP investments. They surveyed donors and experts to rate sub-IDOs (intermediate development outcomes) under the CGIAR's strategic level outcomes. Donors allocated points across sub-IDOs based on organizational priorities. Experts assigned scores to sub-IDOs based on criteria like relevance and the CGIAR's comparative advantage. Results showed varying priority levels for sub-IDOs. The ISPC aims to use this qualitative prioritization to strengthen the quality, relevance and impact of CRP proposals approved for funding.
More Related Content
Similar to Qualitative prioritization - Tim Kelley
More from Independent Science and Partnership Council of the CGIAR
Qualitative prioritization - Tim Kelley
- 1. Qualitative Prioritization ISPC 12 Meeting,Rome, 15 Sep 2015
- 2. Introduction “CGIAR’s Independent Scienceand Partnership Council (ISPC) will strengthen the quality, relevance, and impact of new investments through the provision of expert scientific guidance through an appropriate qualitative prioritization for the next generation of CRPs at both pre-proposal and final proposal stage. This will ensure that only the strongest, most directly relevant CRP proposals are approved for funding.” Quote from the SRF (May 2015) http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome
- 3. Improved food andnutrition security for health Increased household capacity to cope with shocks Reduced poverty Increased incomes and employment Increased productivity Enhanced smallholder market access Increased resilience of the poor to climate change and other shocks Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Improved food safety More sustainably managed agro- ecosystems Enhanced benefits from ecosystem goods and services Improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices Natural capital enhanced and protected, especially from climate change Cross-cutting issues: Gender and youth , Climate change , Policies and institutions , Capacity development Increased access to productive assets, including natural resources Reduced pre- and post-harvest losses, including those caused by climate change Increased availability of diverse nutrient- rich foods Reduced production risk Reduced biological and chemical hazards in the food system Increased livelihood opportunities Reduced market barriers Increased resilience of agro- ecosystems and communities especially those including smallholders More productive and equitable management of natural resources Land, water and forest degradation (including deforestation) minimized and reversed Improved water quality Increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods More efficient use of inputs Increased value capture by producers Closed yield gaps through improved agronomic and animal husbandry practices Increased conservation and use of genetic resources Diversified enterprise opportunities Enhanced genetic gain Improved access to financial and other services Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient- rich foods Appropriate regulatory environment for food safety Reduced livestock and fish disease risks associated with intensification and climate change Increased safe use of inputs Enhanced conservation of habitats and resources Increased genetic diversity of agricultural and associated landscapes Agricultural systems diversified and intensified in ways that protect soils and water Enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity for multiple goods and services Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forests and other forms of land use
- 4. Climate change Genderand youth Policies and institutions Capacity development Mitigation and adaptation achieved Reduced net GHG emission from agriculture, forestry and other forms of land use Increased above- and below- ground biomass for carbon sequestration Improved forecasting of impacts of climate change and targeted technology development Enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks and extremes Equity and inclusion achieved Enabling environment improved National partners and beneficiaries enabled Gender equitable control of productive assets and resources Technologies which reduce women’s labour and energy expenditure developed and disseminated Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making Enabled environment for climate resilience Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research outputs Increased capacity of partner organisations as evidenced by rates of investment in agricultural research Conducive agricultural policy environment Conducive environment for managing shocks and vulnerability as evidenced in rapid response mechanisms Enhanced institutional capacity of partners research organisations Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organisations through training and exchange Increased capacity for innovation in partner research organisations Enhanced capacity for innovation in partner development organisations and in poor and vulnerable communities
- 5.
- 6. Methodology The analysis wasundertaken in two separate spheres: http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome Donors Asked to indicate their organisational priorities for sub- IDOs Experts Drawing on experts’ knowledge of agricultural R & D pathways to rate sub- IDOs against specific criteria that feed into priorities
- 7. Caveats Sub-IDOs are opento interpretation. Sub-IDOs are interlinked; some may be a necessary condition for others or impacting one may mean impacting several. Development strategies are contextual; variation by country or even within countries. http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome
- 8. I. The DonorSurvey Donors allocated 45 points across the 45 unique sub-IDOs (forcing choices !). Allocations reflected the relative importance of each sub-IDO for the organisation. Of 70 stakeholders and donors approached, 19 respondents. 15 of these 19 contributed 59% of CGIAR funding in 2014. http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome
- 9. Results: Varying Discriminationbetween Sub-IDOS 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 #ofsub-IDOsassignedzero Donor
- 10. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4.3 4.1 3.33.2 4.2 4.4 8.1 9.2 4.5 2.1 1.1 5.2 10.110.2 3.4 5.1 7.2 1.2 8.3 9.1 2.2 3.1 7.1 8.2 6.1 5.3 6.2 9.3 7.3 PointsAssigned Sub-IDO Reduced pre- and post-harvest losses Enhanced genetic gain Increased value capture by producers Increased livelihood opportunities Optimised consumption of diverse nutrient rich foods Enhancement of animal and plant biodiversity Increased use of safe inputs Regulatory environment for food safety Donor Priorities: Total Points Assigned
- 11. II. Expert Opinion 7experts (international agricultural research and development) were asked to undertake a prioritization exercise. Multi-disciplinary: economists, agricultural R&D expert, bio- physical scientist, international development expert, donors, ex CGIAR http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome
- 12. Methodology http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome •Assign scores of 1-5 to sub-IDOs according to some of these criteria: The relevance of the sub-IDO for achieving the SLO. The centrality of agricultural research to this sub-IDO. The comparative advantage of the CGIAR for achieving the sub- IDO. The International Public Goods orientation of CG to achieve the sub- IDO. Expectation of delivery in the short and long term.
- 13. Methodology Initially wanted toestablish some sort of consensus/majority. • Normalised scores • Divided into quintiles • Grouped into high, moderate and low • Combined relevance and centrality to form ISPC rating (high, moderate-high, moderate or low) http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome
- 14. Results: Priority Levelsfor all Sub-IDOs under the SLOs
- 15. Results: Priority Levelsfor Sub-IDOs under the Cross Cutting Themes
- 16. Comparing prioritisation results tosub-IDO targets in the CRP pre-proposals http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome
- 19. Going Forward “CGIAR’s IndependentScience and Partnership Council (ISPC) will strengthen the quality, relevance, and impact of new investments through the provision of expert scientific guidance through an appropriate qualitative prioritization for the next generation of CRPs at both pre-proposal and final proposal stage. This will ensure that only the strongest, most directly relevant CRP proposals are approved for funding.” http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome
- 20. Going Forward To whatextent is this information useful for evaluating CRP strength and relevance in this pre-proposal stage? How can this methodology be refined for a more robust analysis of full proposals? http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC 12, Rome