CGIAR change process and RTB response

Graham Thiele

RTB Annual Meeting

Entebbe, September 29th 2014

Content

• CGIAR change process• RTB Timeline• RTB 1.0 (Themes)• RTB 2.0 (Flagship Projects)• Governance• Conclusion and next steps

CGIAR change process

Components change process

• Harmonizes donor support for researchFund Council

• Unites 15 international agricultural research centersConsortium

• Provides donors independent adviceIndependent Science

and Partnership Council

• Rallies donors, centers and partners around a common approach

Strategy and Results Framework (SRF)

• Goals for all CGIAR researchFour system level outcomes

Co

mp

on

ents

System level outcomes (SLOs)

Reduced Rural Poverty

Stronger Food Security

Sustainable NRM

Better Nutrition & Health

Change process next steps

1. Revising SRF (ongoing):

• grand challenges: planetary boundaries, globalization, environmental dynamics and population demographics

• goals (SLOs to SDGs) and targets (Intermediate Development Outcomes)

• strengthening innovation

• accountability – results-based management (RBM)

2. Extension phase CRPs: 2015-16

• CGIAR review and response

SRF Vision statement

Reduced poverty Improved nutrition and health

Improved natural resource management and ecosystems

services

systems)

livelihood(coping(cap

dependent(on(

capture(by(

barriers(to(

par8cipa8on

Improved(policy( and(informa8on(

on(resource(base

Reduced(

market(

Enhanced( policies(for( conserving( forest(resou

rces

Improved((water( policy(and( management(of( basi

n(level

Improved(input( efficiency(and(

safety

Increased( adop8on(of( nutri8on(bestD

prac8ces

Improved(trade(and(SPS(policies

Increased(value(

smallholdersReduced(

produc8on(risk(

Reduced( pre(and(post( prod

uc8on(loss

Increased(

opportuni8esEnhanced

gene8c(poten8al

Improved( livelihoods(of( p

eople(

smallDscale(fisheries.

Improved(policies

Reduced tropical deforestation

Enhanced( produc8on(and( sustainability(of( alterna8ves(to( sla

sh(and(burn

Increased(value( of(8mber(and( nonD8mber( fore

st

Reversed land degradation

(including rangeland

Soil(nutrient( balance( en

hanced

Above(and( below(ground( biomass( increas

ed.

Reduced(land( degrada8on( f

rom(plantD animal( intera

c8on

Enhanced sustainable use of aquatic and

marine ecosystem

services

Enhanced conservation

and sustainable use of water

Increased(onD farm(water( produc8vity

Improved( management(of( water(in( agricultural

( systems

Protected human health

with best agricultural

practices

Increased(water(quality

Reduc8on(of( human(diseases( risks(associated(

with(changing( agricultural( syste

ms

Improved food Safety

Reduced( biological( con

taminant

Reduced( chemical( cont

aminant

Increased dietary quality, adequacy and

diversity

Increased( consump8on(of( biofor

8fied(crops(

Increased( availability(and( accessibility(of( high(quality( foods

(

Increased agriculture profitability

Diversified( enterprise( opportuni8es

Enhanced smallholder

market access

Improved(input(market

Improved(output(market

Improved( financial( services

Increased resilience

of the poor

lmproved enabling environment

(

Increase househo

coping(cap

d( ld( acity

Increased agricultural productivity

Achieved( produc8ve(

poten8al

Improved Nutrition & Health will remain as one of three top strategic results

Change process next steps

3. Second phase CRPs: 2017-2020

• Portfolio review of CRPs – new, consolidate, integrate

• Flagship projects/clusters of activity, theories of change, value for money

• Outcome (results) based accounting

• Performance evaluation

• Pre-proposals due March 2015

RTB Timeline

RTB response - Timeline

Year Action

2010 Proposal - RTB 1.0

2011 Review and improvement

2012 Start up - RTB 1.0

2013 Fully operational RTB 1.0

Scoping RTB 2.0

2014 RTB 1.0 with pilot RTB 2.0

2015 Transition from RTB 1.0 to 2.0 (Hybrid)

2016/2017 Implementation RTB 2.0

RTB 1.0

A COLLABORATION OF:

+ a wide spectrum of research-for-development stakeholders & partners

BananaPlantain

Cassava Potato Sweetpotato Yam Other R&T

200 million farmers depend on RTB cropsBuffering role in food systems

Our Crops

• Increased scale

• Greater capacity • Exploit synergies: genuine “win-wins” eg similarities in

seed systems and postharvest management

To do together what we cannot do separately

Program “value added”

Crop expertise by Center

CROP EXPERTISE

CENTER

BANANA

CASSAVA

POTATO

SWEETPOTATO

YAM

AROIDS

ANDEAN

Bioversity

CIAT

CIP

CIRAD

IITA

RTB 1.0: design features

• Output-oriented (products)

• Crop/Themes central to architecture and budgets

• Crosscutting through complementary funding

• Product portfolio: planning, reporting (and knowledge management)

• Management with Theme leaders

• Gender increased importance

• Un-structured performance evaluation

Themes

RTB cross-cutting projects: examples

Next generation breeding

Quantifying & managing seed degeneration

Modelling RTB-seed systems

Enhanced risk assessment critical pests & diseases

Implementing gender strategy

Example crosscutting research

Seed degeneration and modelling seed systems• Yield loss viruses and seed

system major shared constraint

• Banana, cassava, potato, sweetpotato, yam

• CG centers, KSU + NARS

Planning Implementing

Data managementPublishing

Building a culture of collaboration

Progress RTB 1.0

• Clearly defined scope of work and research contracts (product portfolio)

• Strong crosscutting research projects

• Dynamized collaboration across RTB centers and researchers

• Integrated and strategic gender research

• Strengthened collaboration within shared mandate crops, esp. cassava

• Collaboration CRPs: Humidtropics, PIM, L&F

Challenges for RTB 1.0

• Stronger linkages upstream than downstream

• Weaker engagement in Asia and Latin America

• 550+ products in Product Portfolio!

• Software platform for planning and reporting (GoogleDrive) overwhelmed

• Limited performance evaluation/talent management

• Themes good for achieving research products

• Outcomes require collaboration across themes

RTB 2.0

How can we do a better job?

• Huge potential in new technologies available:

• GIS

• Computation – modelling

• Pathogen testing

• Omic revolution

• Internet – mobile telephony – crowd sourcing

• Reality for many African farmers: limited adoption/relevance

• “Technology got stuck in the publications”

• Lack of critical mass

• Enaging partners

Varietal adoption and turnover by crop

RTB 2.0: Design features

• Results-oriented (outcomes)

• Flagship projects/clusters of activities + impact pathways central to architecture, co-develop with partners

• Flagship project and cluster leaders

• Product portfolio: planning, reporting and knowledge management

• Gender mainstreaming

• Performance evaluation / M&E

• Accountability linked to IDOs

• Results-based budgets

“Lead” (flagship) product

iPhone

Vast library apps

Packaging & design

concept

Advertising

Data bases user

information

Delivery cluster: Combating vitamin A deficiency withresilient, nutritious orange-fleshed sweetpotato

Improve diet quality and

incomes of 15 million+

resource‐poor households in countries with

VAD

Strategic Objective

Impact pathway

Outcomes

Candidate OFSP

varieties

Guidelines gender

responsive vine

multiplication

Demand creation

Advocacy strategy

Value chains and delivery framework

Sustainable intensification

framework

Client orientation - feedback

Research

Set strateg

ic goals

Define frame-work

Plan for M&E

Implement and

use monitori

ng

Manage and use

evaluation Stakeholder

participation

Results based management cycleL E

A R

N I

N G

Accountability: Intermediate Dev. Outcomes

IDO IndicatorImproved productivity in pro-poor RTB food systems

Change on-farm yield by income group

Total annual farm-level productivity

Increased and stable access to food commodities by rural & urban poor

• Coping Strategies Index (http://www.seepnetwork.org/the-coping-strategy-index-resources-1134.php)

Household Food Insecurity and Access Index

Change in calorific intake per capita per dayIncreased and more gender-

equitable income for poor participants in RTB value chains

% Change in farmer revenue from improved RTB varieties

% changes in RTB product income gender differentiated

Flagship Projects

• Delivery (near market-ready “scalable” technologies):• Crop based• Small and medium scale cassava processing targeting rural

women• Nutrient-rich sweetpotato• Managing and containing banana diseases

• Discovery (mid-long term options):• RTB transformational breeding platform• Game-changing traits

• Learning and support (cross-cutting):• Framework for seed system development• Learning for postharvest and value addition

Governance

RTB 1.0: Governance & Management

Center & Gender Focal Points

RTB 2.0: Governance & Management

Center & Gender Focal Points Flagship projects

Flagship project leaders

Cluster of activity leaders

Conclusion and next steps

1. Moving to RBM with pilot in 2014

2. Clusters of activities in construction (CIP ahead of curve)

3. Engage Humidtropics, SROs (Asareca), national partners

4. Transition to unified Steering Committee Jan 1st 2015

5. Timing shift RTB 1.0 to 2.0?• Independent external evaluation 2015

• Extension request 2015-2016• CO and ISPC favourable review• Bring forward RTB 2.0?

• Preparation for second call (2017-): (pre) proposal