CGIAR TransformationWhere are we going?

Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

CGIAR TransformationCGIAR TransformationWhere are we going?Where are we going?

Ruben G. Echeverría19th October 2009


Strategy Team: Joachim von Braun (chair), Derek Byerlee, Colin Chartres, Tom Lumpkin, Norah Olembo, Jeff Waage

September 24, 2009


TODAY


TomorrowTomorrowFUND

FUND COUNCIL

Fund Mgmt Unit

FUNDER SUMMIT

CONSORTIUMM

anag

emen

t Lay

erO

vers

ight BOARD

Common Services

CentersCenters

Consortium CEO

Center Performance Agreements

Bilateral Project Financing

Program Performance Contracts

Accountability:

Science and Partnership Council

Science and Partnership Council

6 year Strategy and Results Framework

6 year Strategy and Results Framework


CURRENT CGIARCURRENT CGIAR FUTURE CGIARFUTURE CGIAR

Greater impact on food security and poverty reduction

Mission creep and trying to do everything

Duplicative mandate of the Centers without clear System-wide vision and strategy for impact

Complex and cumbersome governance and lack of accountability

Static partnerships that are not enabling scalable impact and research adoption

Lack of coordination among investors

Declining core resources

Clear vision with focused priorities that respond to global development challenges

Centers that collaborate, work toward the System agenda and priorities, and deliver impact

Streamlined and effective System-level governance with clear accountability

Strong and innovative partnerships with NARS, the private sector and civil society that enable impact

Strengthened, coordinated funding mechanisms that are linked to the System agenda and priorities

Stabilization and growth of resource support


Issues Undermining the Issues Undermining the CGIAR’s EffectivenessCGIAR’s Effectiveness

• Mission Creep: Over the course of the last 37 years, the CGIAR’s mandate has increased significantly, growing from 4 Centers with a narrow focus on productivity to 15 Centers with an expanded agenda. Resources have not kept pace with this broadening portfolio.

• Increased complexity and overlaps in mandates: Since its inception in 1971, the CGIAR system has evolved into an increasingly complex entity, characterized by complicated governance structures. There is no mutually agreed “compact” outlining the obligations of donors and centers.

• Stagnating Resources and Lack of Donor Coordination: Contributions were $20 million in 1972 and $89 million in 2007. Furthermore, 36% of funding in 2007 was unrestricted as compared with 63% in 1995 and 100% in 1972. Lack of coordination among investors results in sub-optimal resource use.

• Changing Landscape of Agricultural Research: The entry of strong new actors into the field of agricultural research is further challenging the role of the CGIAR.


Recasting the Founding PrinciplesRecasting the Founding Principles

Existing Principles The ChangeDonor Sovereignty Donor HarmonizationCenter Autonomy Significantly reduced with greater System

coherenceDecision Making by Consensus Replaced by new decision rules and

Performance ContractsIndependent Scientific and Technical Advice Integrated Independent Science, Partnership

and Development Outcome Advice


CGIAR TransformationCGIAR Transformation


CGIAR CGIAR TransformationTransformation


Actors and Governance of Food and Agriculture Actors and Governance of Food and Agriculture

• The CGIAR: catalyser, facilitator, and leader of int’l public goods research in agriculture

• BUT must build new and diverse partnerships to deliver outcomes effectively and efficiently

CGIAR CentersCGIAR Centers National agric. research National agric. research systemssystems

Private sector investors in agric. Private sector investors in agric. researchresearch


Portfolio of Mega ProgramsPortfolio of Mega Programs

• Constitutes coherent agenda for the entire CGIAR to meet the Constitutes coherent agenda for the entire CGIAR to meet the its objectivesits objectives

• Shows quantifiable outcomes and ultimate impacts the CGIAR Shows quantifiable outcomes and ultimate impacts the CGIAR can coproduce and delivercan coproduce and deliver

• Ensures that each Mega Program has explicit linkages to other Ensures that each Mega Program has explicit linkages to other mega programsmega programs


ScenariosScenarios• Scenario A assumes that productivity increases (total factor

productivity is assumed to increase annually in all regions by 0.5 percentage points).

• Scenario B assumes that countries and donors become more poverty oriented (that is, total R&D invested in 2008 is allocated among regions in such a way that poverty is minimized).

• Scenario C combines a scenario of increased productivity with increased efficiency of R&D.


Scenarios for R&D investment and impact on poverty Scenarios for R&D investment and impact on poverty and agricultural productivity growth, 2008-20and agricultural productivity growth, 2008-20


Mega Program Mega Program PortfolioPortfolio - Draft - Draft1. Crop Germplasm Conservation, Enhancement, and Use—Genetic

improvement of the world’s leading food crops’ productivity and resiliency (i.e. rice, wheat, maize) , building on the success of the CGIAR, including its crucial role in conservation of genetic resources.

2. Diets, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health—Research to improve nutritional value of food and diets, enhance targeted nutrition and food safety programs, and change agricultural commodities and systems in the medium term to enhance health outcomes.


3. Institutional Innovations, ICTs, and Markets—Knowledge to inform institutional changes needed for a well-functioning local, national, and global food system that connects small farmers to agricultural value chains through information and communications technologies and facilitates policy and institutional reforms.

4. Climate Change and Agriculture—Diagnosis of the directions and potential impacts of climate change for agriculture and identification of adaptation and mitigation options for agricultural, food, and environmental systems.


5. Agricultural Systems for the Poor and Vulnerable—Research integrating promising crop, animal, fish, and forest combinations with policy and natural resource issues in the domains where high concentrations of the world’s poor live and which offer agricultural potential.

6. Water, Soils, and Ecosystems—Harmonization of agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability goals through policies, methods, and technologies to improve water and soil management.

7. Forests and Biomass—Technical, institutional, and policy changes to help conserve forests for humanity and harness forestry and biomass production potentials for sustainable development and the poor.


Each Individual Mega Program:Each Individual Mega Program:• Addresses one or more strategic objectivesAddresses one or more strategic objectives

• Is of sufficient scale to deliver on results and/or measurable impacts Is of sufficient scale to deliver on results and/or measurable impacts

• Reflects the CGIAR’s comparative advantage in leading/catalyzing Reflects the CGIAR’s comparative advantage in leading/catalyzing researchresearch

• Effectively mobilizes resources, capacity, and synergies among Effectively mobilizes resources, capacity, and synergies among partnerspartners

• Has a clear impact pathwayHas a clear impact pathway

• Has an investment time horizon of 6 to 20 yearsHas an investment time horizon of 6 to 20 years

• Has a simple and cost-effective management mechanismHas a simple and cost-effective management mechanism


PlatformsPlatforms• Gender : Facilitate strong attention to gender issues and research

cooperation on these issues across MPs. Expected results: – increased involvement and income of women in agriculture– reduced disparities in their access to productive resources and

control of income

• Capacity-building: Strengthen capacity of CGIAR and partners. Expected result:– dynamic knowledge-creating and -sharing system, strong

independent NARS, and other research partners sharing knowledge resources and applications


Examples of Mega Program synergiesExamples of Mega Program synergies

With strong synergies, the value added of the MP portfolio surpasses the sum of the value of individual

MPs operations

MP1: Crop Germplasm MP1: Crop Germplasm Conservation, Enhancement, Conservation, Enhancement, and Useand Use

MP2: Diets, Agriculture, Nutrition, MP2: Diets, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Healthand Health

MP4: Climate Change and MP4: Climate Change and Agriculture Agriculture

MP3: Institutional Innovations, MP3: Institutional Innovations, ICTs, and MarketsICTs, and Markets


Major Transition IssuesMajor Transition Issues

• Transition of funding and research directionsTransition of funding and research directions

• Systemwide and Ecoregional Programs and Challenge Systemwide and Ecoregional Programs and Challenge Programs in the future MP framework Programs in the future MP framework

• Building existing and continuing work into the new MPsBuilding existing and continuing work into the new MPs


The CGIAR in LACThe CGIAR in LAC• Several centers had a strong regional approach when initially

establish

• The regional approach lost relevance with the increased number of centers around the world

• The regional approach reappears on the Center’s agenda in the late 90s

• The CGIAR Change Process has repositioned the regional approach


CGIAR in LAC: A new opportunity to CGIAR in LAC: A new opportunity to renew alliancesrenew alliances

• CGIAR as a key partner for LAC; building on regional strength

• CGIAR Change Process: rethinking strategy and structure

• CGIAR: more programmatic, open to alliances, and better funded

• Building a research agenda that includes themes of common interest

• Shared responsibility and accountability for design, execution, follow-up, and evaluation of joint projects

Documents

CGIAR TransformationWhere are we going?