ISPC observations on the CRP pre- proposals Washington November 2015
Washington November 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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
Washington November 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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
Washington November 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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
Ge ne ba A4NH CCAFS PIM WLE nk DCLAS Fish FTA Livestock Maize Rice RTB Wheat CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B Overall analysis N A A B B A B B A B B B A B Theory of Change and Impact Pathway N A A B C A B B B C A A A A Governance and Management N A A A C A C C B C A B A A
CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B Overall analysis Strategic relevance Consideration of 'grand challenges' inter-CRP synergies Agri-food-system CRP adopt an integrated approach Integrative CRPs Rigor and credibility of scientific arguments CRP offers more value than sum of FPs A A B B B B A B B B A B Lessons learned Strategic relevance Consideration of 'grand challenges' inter-CRP synergies Agri-food-system CRP adopt an integrated approach Integrative CRPs Rigor and credibility of scientific arguments CRP offers more value than sum of FPs Lessons learned
CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B Theory of Change & Impact pathways Theory of Change A A B C B B B C A A A A Impact Pathways Alignment with SRF Prioritisation matrix at CRP level
CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B Governance and Management A A A C C C B C A B A A Governance structure; Leadership Team, Partnership strategy
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Washington November 2015 Headline comments 1 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
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Washington November 2015 Headline comments continued 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
Paris September 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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
Paris September 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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) Potential discussion point: what do we all understand by an agri-food system?
Paris September 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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.
Paris September 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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? Potential discussion point: what has already been learnt about what works well in terms of integration? What do we understand a Global Integrating Program to be?
Paris September 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ 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 Comparative/competitive/ collaborative advantage • 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? Potential discussion point: who is reviewing the CA advantage of the CGIAR?
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Paris September 2015 Comparative/competitive/ collaborative advantage 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
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Paris Sept 2015 Scaling up and impact • 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 Potential discussion point: Do we need stand alone scaling up Flagships? Should W1/W2 funding be used for scaling up?
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Paris Sept 2015 Scaling up and impact 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.
Paris Sept 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Contributions to the Results Framework • Every one of the 51 sub-IDOs targeted by at least 3 Flagships • The most targeted sub-IDOs are cross-cutting sub-IDOs • The least targeted sub-IDOs are specific e.g. food safety etc
Paris Sept 2015 http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Contributions to the Results Framework Action points: The full proposals must include the sources, assumptions and calculations used in deriving contributions to l SLO targets. The template for full proposals should include guidelines on prioritization among sub-IDOs and SLO targets. The FO could provide evidence of the donors’ expressed priorities by summing their recent investments.
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ Washington November 2015 Conclusions • Commend the scientists across the System in the genuine progress made in working as a System and being committed as a System • Lack of conviction of the need for new entities distinct from CRPs, unless they have formal end-points
Recommend
More recommend
