Upload
independent-science-and-partnership-council-of-the-cgiar
View
42
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Strategy & Results Framework
ISPC Meeting, CIFOR
30thth March 2015
Session 12.0
Consultative and Collaborative Process.
CB
Consultation Process
• CGIAR Consortium Office & GFAR jointly organized and implemented
a broad stakeholder consultation both within and outside CGIAR.
Information available at: http://www.cgiar.org/srfconsultation.
• Two main phases:
– phase 1- 20th Nov to 12th December 2014 focus on: vision;
mission, goals, niche.
– Phase 23-27th Feb 2015 focus on “How well does the CGIAR
Strategy and Results Framework reflect a good roadmap for
effective agricultural research for development”
• Contributions Publically available at
http://www.cgiar.org/srfconsultation/srf-consultation-results/-
• SRF had seen “great revolution” and “maturity” benefiting from the
many voices that have been heard.
Decision from Consortium Board, Mexico
• Approved subject to following amendments:
– Inclusion of aspirational targets (as per earlier drafts of SRF)
– More excitement in write up identifying what is new.
– Shorten the document
– Focal point Marion Guillou, Ann Tutweiller, Wayne Powell &
Frank Risjberman
• Develop a two page “flyer” that provides an attractive investor
friendly document to be used by donors.
– Focal points Wayne Powell, Tony Simmons & Ganesan
Balachander.
CRP 2nd Call Guidance
(work in progress)
Introduction • This draft document provides guidelines for the CRP second call that
the CB will be invited to authorize after the FC approval of the SRF (April 2015).
• Recent discussions with Centres, ISPC and Funders indicate a preference for the establishment of a designed portfolio of CRPs with appropriate cross cutting platforms.
• Agreement on the portfolio will enable a targeted two step pre-proposals in early June 2015, followed by Full proposals in Jan 2016.
• “Level playing field” concept needs to be finalized and incorporated into final document.
Timeline Present - June 2015 Designing an SRF-responsive and internally coherent CRP II portfolio 16 March Circulation of final Meridian Institute report on the various options for clustering CRPs (the bottom-
up analysis)
16 March Sub-groups of Centers (and others) follow up on Rome meeting discussions to start work on (i)
producing an analysis/mapping of how the sub-IDOs of SRF influence the portfolio design options
(the top-down analysis) and (ii) identifying internal management mechanisms for the CRPs that
remove any perception of a preferential position for being a lead / coordinating Center (the level
playing field)
16-18 March ISPC proposes holding a virtual call of the working group that was involved with the SRF
(representatives of donors, CB/CO, FO, Centers, CRPs) to bring everyone up to speed on CRP II
process and solicit their ideas
24-26 March CB meeting in Mexico – to come to a decision on the second call process (as outlined here or
subsequently modified)
30 March-1 April ISPC meeting in Bogor – provide guidance on CRP portfolio including CRP alignments, new
initiatives, proposal template and evaluation criteria. ISPC intends to submit a paper to FC
summarizing their discussions.
Week of 13 April 2nd virtual call of the group convened by ISPC
3rd week April Draft outputs of the working groups on ‘top-down analysis’ and ‘level-playing field’
27 April “Berne-style” meeting on sidelines of FC meeting in Bogor facilitated by ISPC to provide feedback
from donors and others on the CRP portfolio design options and content
11-13 May 3-day meeting of Centers (and CRP representatives) to agree on the composition of the CRP
portfolio and cross cutting platforms/mechanisms – possibly facilitated by the Meridian Institute.
(Tony is sending out a doodle poll to check dates). Suggest ISPC / CO /CB involved in the second half
of the meeting to review and amend proposals for the final portfolio design (virtually or in person)
Timeline (cont’d)
June - Dec 2015 Pre-proposal stage and review
Early June CB invites Centers to submit pre-proposals (2 months)
Mid-August CRP pre-proposals submitted. Review period starts by relevant entities.
Week of 14 September ISPC meeting to finalize their review and subsequent submission to the FC by end September
Period for feedback from Centers on the review comments
Propose a pre-CB/FC meeting of Centers with ISPC and CB representatives to consider implications
of the review comments on the portfolio design as a whole and identify any revisions that could be
tabled to FC and also consider transitional arrangements for any elements to be dropped
7 November CB/FC meeting(s) provides feedback on the pre-proposals
Jan - Nov 2016 Full proposal stage and review – as earlier proposed in Guidance Document
1 January CB invites full proposals
30 April Centers submit CRP proposals
May to September review of CRP proposals by relevant entities and feedback
Mid November CB/FC approval of CRPs
From Jan 2017 CRP II implementation
Starts 1 January 2017 A ten year research portfolio
Assessment Criteria Pre-Proposals
To be applied to each CRP & Flagship
Cross-cutting themes (also to be applied to each Flagship)
Strategic relevance Gender and youth
Potential unintended consequences ‘grand challenges’ in particular climate change
scientific quality Enabling environment
Comparative advantage Capacity development
Named partners Intellectual asset management, Open Access/Open Data
Lessons learned
Assessment Criteria (cont’d)
Budget and staff time Cohesion
Staff time Programme of research
Budget interaction with other CRPs
contribution at the CGIAR-System level
Governance and management
Leadership & Management
Partnership
Target Beneficiaries
Target IDOs
and sub-IDOs
Total number of
poor
smallholders
Total number
of other
beneficiaries
Target
countries
Key
assumptions
CRP level
Flagship 1
Flagship 2
Flagship 3 etc
Bill
& M
elin
da
Gat
es F
ou
nd
atio
n
CGIAR Genebanks Options Paper
The genetic diversity treasure chest
Beans staple diet for 0.5 billion people
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-32039991
.
Vintage traits, Tempary bean & heat tolerance. (CIAT)
Process; Engagement, Planning & Preparation
• International workshop on the promotion of Public-
Private partnerships for Pre-breeding, Montpellier 2nd 3rd
& 4th Feb 2015 (Philippe Ellul organizer and motivator)
• Workshop 5th & 6th Feb in Montpellier with Genebank
managers, CO Science Team, Bioversity (Policy), Crop
Trust & FO.
• Weekly skype calls & iterative writing of final document-
March 6th.
• Circulation to Centres, FO & ISPC.
• Accountability matrix in preparation and will be finalised
to accompany final document to FC.
Purpose of the document
• This document responds to a request from the Fund Council for an
analysis of the: “funding for and management of the CGIAR
genebanks, including identifying potential implications in the event of
a short fall in the Crop Trust’s target endowment and proposing a
plan for submission to the Peer Review Team for its review and
input”.
• Due to a shortfall in the endowment continued investment is
required from the FC from 2017 to 2021 to support the genebanks.
• Three funding options are presented:
– minimum international and legal obligations.
– additional support to collecting, outreach and partnership,
– a potentially “game changing” concept for a more ambitious
proposal for transforming the genebanks and their use.
Core Activities of Genebanks (Option1)
• Core genebank operations: the minimum non-research activities
that must be undertaken by a genebank, and without which the
fundamental security of the collection or its use is at serious risk.
These operations will eventually be funded entirely by the
endowment ( Described Table 3 pge 11)
• Core collective needs: the minimum activities that are needed to
upgrade and empower the CGIAR genebanks to fulfill their
international obligations and achieve expected standards. These
activities will generally not be funded by the endowment in the long-
term: achieving minimum standards, data management & policy.
The needs for support to achieve standards will reduce significantly
once standards are met. ( Described Table 4 pge 13 & 14)
Koo B, Pardey PG, Wright BD. 2002. Endowing Future Harvests: the long-term costs of conserving genetic resources at the CGIAR Centers.
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/endowing-future-
harvests-the-long-term-costs-of-conserving-genetic-resources-at-the-cgiar-Centers/
Shands H, Hawtin, G, MacNeil, G. 2010. The Cost to the CGIAR Centres of maintaining and distributing germplasm
http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/2566/fc4_funding_proposal_CGIAR_Genebanks.pdf
Summary of total funding needs and contributions from the endowment and CGIAR fund according to Funding Option 1
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Coregenebankrequirements 18.46 18.83 18.93 18.82 18.70 18.56 93.83
Collectiverequirements 1.60 7.82 6.69 5.42 3.67 3.08 26.68
Programmanagement 0.90 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.60 2.87
TotalDirectCosts 27.20 26.18 24.81 22.95 22.24 123.3810%Overhead(CGIARfundsonly)
&2%CSP 2.63 2.27 1.85 1.44 1.18 9.37
Grandtotal(Option1) 29.83 28.45 26.66 24.39 23.42 132.75
Contributionfromendowment 6.75 9.06 11.53 13.35 15.03 55.72FundsrequiredfromCGIAR
Fund 23.08 19.39 15.13 11.04 8.39 77.03
Timeline for Genebanks to reach performance
targets to be eligible for funding from
endowment (indicators & targets Table 2, page 7)
Use of Projected income from the Trust in 2017
(Page 16, table 6)
Expenditure item Projected use of the
endowment income in 2017
(USD millions)
Svalbard Global Seed Vault 0.15
Non-CGIAR collections 0.92
Crop Trust Secretariat 1.33
Existing grants to CGIAR Genebanks 2.65
Additional funds available to CGIAR
Genebanks eligible for long-term funding 4.15
Total 9.20
Projected contribution of Crop Trust Endowment
Recommendations 2 & 3
• Collecting, outreach and partnership activities: are activities that
make an immediate and critical contribution to the collections and to
the global system of conservation and use within which the CGIAR
plays a pivotal, leadership role. Such activities include targeted
collecting, capacity building and partnership projects, and monitoring
and communication of impact.
• Opportunities: correspond to the possibilities open to the CGIAR to
take advantage of developing trends and technologies and carry out
large-scale initiatives to genotype and phenotype the collections.
These Opportunities are outlined in Section 4.
Summary of total funding needs and contributions from the endowment and CGIAR fund according to Funding Option 2 ( more detail table 7 pge 17)
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Coregenebankrequirements 18.46 18.83 18.93 18.82 18.70 18.56 93.83
Collectiverequirements 1.60 7.82 6.69 5.42 3.67 3.08 26.68Programmanagement 0.90 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.60 2.87Collecting,outreach&partnership 1.09 0.75 1.35 1.35 1.15 0.40 5.00
TotalDirectCosts 27.95 27.53 26.16 24.10 22.64 128.38
10%Overhead(CGIARfundsonly)
&2%CSP 2.72 2.43 2.02 1.58 1.23 9.98Grandtotal(Option1) 30.67 29.96 28.18 25.68 23.87 138.36
Contributionfromendowment 6.75 9.06 11.53 13.35 15.03 55.72FundsrequiredfromCGIARFund 23.92 20.90 16.65 12.33 8.84 82.64
Funding Options related to these 3
recommendations
Summary comments from PPP workshop in
Montpellier- Feb 2015
• Broadening genetic diversity in most key food crops is an
imperative
• Genomics, informatics and high throughput systems
have changed the scientific landscape for gene
identification, characterisation and introgression –
challenges can be tackled now: previously too
technically difficult, slow or just prohibitively expensive
• Funding for pre-breeding is typically too low or
inconsistent for many food crops or non-existent for
under-utilised crops in developing countries
Funding & Clarity of Leadership roles
Public sector
• Collection, conservation
and enabling utilisation of
sovereign germplasm and
wild relatives
• Characterisation of gene
bank collections
• Fundemental crop
diversity research and
methodology creation for
pre-breeding
Private sector
• Systematic, rapid
development of new
varieties
• High-throughput testing
• Demand-led best
practices
• Seed systems and
deployment of new
varieties to reach farmers
Funding Options related to these 3
recommendations
Total funds required from the
CGIAR Fund between 2017-2021 Activities covered
1 USD 77.03 million Core genebank and collective requirements
(Recommendation 1)
2 USD 82.64 million
Core genebank and collective requirements
Collecting, outreach and partnership activities
(Recommendations 1 & 2)
3 USD 150+ million
Core genebank and collective requirements
Collecting, outreach and partnership activities
“Genebank Plus” (Recommendations 1, 2 & 3)